Cyprus-Forum.com

[insan]

http://www.cyprus-conflict.net/Patrick,%20chp%204.htm


Pantelis, here's a good article to follow the way of money flowed. Do you think that this mentality has been changed?

[pantelis]

Dear Insan,
I am very familiar with this passage you are referring to, as you very well know, but I fail to see the answers to my questions.
I have asked for evidence of the support of the intercommunal conflict by simple citizens.
I was only 5 in 1964. I did not experience any conflict between TCs and GCs. The conflict and attempts to overthrow the GC administration by a small group of ethnic fanatics, is more familiar subject to me. I had many interactions with TCs before 74.
Who was behind the financing of the attempts to overthrow the GC government and as a consequence the partition (double enosis), is what I want to know.
On the TC side, and correct me if I am wrong, there was policy of isolation and separation from the GC economy and society. Who financed Denktash's campaign of "no solution" during the years of negotiations? Did the TC taxpayers do that? Did the TCs, except of the civil servant who had no choice, ever paid a bakkira to the government tax fund?
I quote from your document,

"When, subsequently, an Income Tax Bill was introduced to the House the Turkish Representatives again used their right of separate majority to defeat the Bill with the result that the State remained without an Income Tax Law. In an attempt to minimize the grave consequences of the situation thus created, an unorthodox system has been devised whereby one Income Tax Law was enacted by the House imposing taxation on non- citizens of the Republic and two separate Income Tax Laws were enacted by the Greek and Turkish Communal Chambers imposing a form of income tax on Greeks and Turks, respectively. Thus, the Republic has three income tax systems, which cause administrative dislocation and give rise to a multitude of legal contentions. Further, in view of the fact that the Government has no control over the Communal Chambers, any amendment may at any time be made by the respective Communal Chamber in its income tax legislation, thereby creating in- calculable difficulties for assessment purposes. The existence of three separately controlled tax systems requires separate accounting; the consequent slow rate of assessment and collection of the income taxes encourages tax evasion to a level unknown before in Cyprus. Past experience has shown that the right of separate majorities was not exercised by the Turkish Representatives because of disagreement with provisions of the taxation legislation before the House. The Turkish Members used this right against taxation Bills neither because they disagreed with their provisions nor because such Bills were discriminatory against their community, but for matters unconnected with taxation legislation. A further difficulty in the enactment of taxation legislation, arising out of the separate majorities provisions, is demonstrated by the fact that such legislation submitted to the House requires months of frustrating negotiations. Even if one assumes that in the future a more prudent use will be made of the right of separate majorities, the application of this procedure will always cause serious difficulties. It may well make it impossible for the Government to effect proper development of the direct taxes as revenue procedure and also as unified instruments of social and economic policy. No Government is able to carry out a programme of development unless it can also plan and control its resources. "

My point is that, small forces from within the two communities worked from opposite sides, for the same cause - the collapse of the independence of the island of Cyprus. The TCs were a smaller group and thus more easily manipulated by their respective destructive forces. On the GC side, things were not that easy and Makarios was a big obstacle to their goals. The rest is history.
Greece was never on the same side with the Greek Cypriot majority.

Turkey cultivated and encouraged a policy of dependence and isolation, by financing the TC community through key TC "leaders", in every village and town, to minimize the interaction between the two communities, using tactics of bribery and if necessary fear and intimidation, until the ground was prepared for their magical "LIBERATION".

The same group of TCs continues to control the north today, but with more close supervision from the Turkish government. (Please correct me if I am wrong.)

I cannot blame the common people, on both sides, for what happened during those years. The level of education and living standards were very low. My parents, for example, hardly had some elementary education and no property to speak of. Making a living was their only worry.

I blame though the people of our generation, with the university degrees and our 21st century amenities, who cannot see the common interests a united society could bring.
Has ignorance been replaced by greed?

[insan]

Dear Insan,
I am very familiar with this passage you are referring to, as you very well know, but I fail to see the answers to my questions.
I have asked for evidence of the support of the intercommunal conflict by simple citizens.

Dear Pantelis,

It's not hard to guess wheather the simple citizens gave financial support to them or not, through different stages of inter-communal strife. They either voluntarily gave support or by force.

I was only 5 in 1964. I did not experience any conflict between TCs and GCs. The conflict and attempts to overthrow the GC administration by a small group of ethnic fanatics, is more familiar subject to me. I had many interactions with TCs before 74.
Who was behind the financing of the attempts to overthrow the GC government and as a consequence the partition (double enosis), is what I want to know.

Let's investigate the various parties and their intentions:

1- "Strugglers" and supporters of Enosis.(Mostly the Greek and GC nationalists, fanatics, big capital owner right wingers, right winged politicians, cadres, right winger army officers, church etc within and outside)

2- "Strugglers" and supporters of Taksim.(Mostly the Turkish and TC nationalists, fanatics, big capital owner right wingers, right winged politicians, right winger army officers, church etc within and outside)


3- "Strugglers" and supporters of a "non-alligned"(USSR flirt) Cyprus.(Mostly the GC and TC left wing)


4- "Strugglers" and supporters of a solution by any method which will keep Cyprus in western block and not damage the relations of US, Turkey and Greece.


As it is seen clearly; double Enosis wasn't/isn't all parties interest... In this frame, we can easily guess who supported whom for what purposes....

On the TC side, and correct me if I am wrong, there was policy of isolation and separation from the GC economy and society. Who financed Denktash's campaign of "no solution" during the years of negotiations? Did the TC taxpayers do that? Did the TCs, except of the civil servant who had no choice, ever paid a bakkira to the government tax fund?

In my opinion, isolation and seperation from the GC economy and society policy was born as a consequence of union with Greece policy of Greek and GC nationalists. The actions of Enosists feed the TC nationalism and shaped the national policy of Turks over Cyprus.

Mainly, the big capital owner nationalist Turks and nationalist TCs financed the "no solution"(Two seperate states solution) campaign of Denktash...

I quote from your document,

"When, subsequently, an Income Tax Bill was introduced to the House the Turkish Representatives again used their right of separate majority to defeat the Bill with the result that the State remained without an Income Tax Law....."

Did any of the political parties and their active supporters respect to RoC? What statement they made from the very first day the treaties signed? We all know that any solution other than Enosis/Taksim wasn't satisfactory for the leading elite of Cyprus problem. Although they didn't need any excuses to maintain Enosis/Taksim policy; the treaties of 60s and the first 3 years of RoC gave them a lot of opportunities to exploit the treaties and events of 1960-63. Both parties abusers, looked out and still have been loking out for other parties' exploitable steps to achieve their goal... what should be expected under those/these conditions? Just an inter-communal strife which caused majority of both communities to suffer for more than 60 years and served the interests of leading elite of Cyprus. As long as Cyprus is in westernblock and under control of right wingers who have good relations with "allies"; does no harm to the relations of Turkey-Grece-US-EU neither US, EU and even UK bother much about the exploitations made by the local leading elites of the Cyprus problem.

My point is that, small forces from within the two communities worked from opposite sides, for the same cause - the collapse of the independence of the island of Cyprus.

That was Enosists and Taksimists first target. Their second targets was/is completely different... Enosists never accepted the double Enosis.

The TCs were a smaller group and thus more easily manipulated by their respective destructive forces. On the GC side, things were not that easy and Makarios was a big obstacle to their goals. The rest is history.

Correct.

Greece was never on the same side with the Greek Cypriot majority.

The Greek missionaries sew the seeds of Enosis in late 1800s and feed it for more than a century. Then, the petition of Enosis signed by %97 of GCs in early 50s. Afterwards, when Greece and Turkey joined to Nato and the cold war strife gained intense, things had changed... Greece started to play the game with its rules though Junta and ultra-nationalists played the kill-joy and the existing Turco-Greco problems grew;bacame a danger for the east mediterennean region which always affected the other members of NATO alliance

Turkey cultivated and encouraged a policy of dependence and isolation, by financing the TC community through key TC "leaders", in every village and town, to minimize the interaction between the two communities, using tactics of bribery and if necessary fear and intimidation, until the ground was prepared for their magical "LIBERATION".

This wasn't the official Cyprus policy of Turkey but executed by the deep state of Turkey...

The same group of TCs continues to control the north today, but with more close supervision from the Turkish government. (Please correct me if I am wrong.)

Not exactly the same group of TCs anymore since the power shared 50/50 amongst them. Closer supervision from the Turkish government is the consequence of the joint agreements had been made amongst them, last year... They decided to play the game together in concordant. Although this alliance does not include Akinci, it seems he shares the same policy after the "yes" vote of %65 of TCs.

I cannot blame the common people, on both sides, for what happened during those years. The level of education and living standards were very low. My parents, for example, hardly had some elementary education and no property to speak of. Making a living was their only worry.

I completely agree with you...

I blame though the people of our generation, with the university degrees and our 21st century amenities, who cannot see the common interests a united society could bring.

You are absolutely right about it...

Has ignorance been replaced by greed?

That's how it seems, unfortunately....

[MicAtCyp]

Who was behind the financing of the attempts to overthrow the GC government and as a consequence the partition (double enosis), is what I want to know.

Panteli, in a thread of this forum titled "words of the wise" back in 20 Sept 2004 I actually supported that most of the evidence leads to the conclussion that the purpose of the coup was not Enosis but double Enosis.And what went wrong is that the Turks cheated on the percentage of land they agreed i.e they took much more. However much to my surprise all TC members of this forum considered it an absolute nonsense....

Greece was never on the same side with the Greek Cypriot majority.

Exactly! This is true even today....

I blame though the people of our generation, with the university degrees and our 21st century amenities, who cannot see the common interests a united society could bring. Has ignorance been replaced by greed?

No, Panteli. Simply there have been so many knots on the rope already, that the new generation is unable to undo. People are totally tight up by the status quo and by those who control. The sad thing is that the next generation will not even care.

[insan]

Panteli, in a thread of this forum titled "words of the wise" back in 20 Sept 2004 I actually supported that most of the evidence leads to the conclussion that the purpose of the coup was not Enosis but double Enosis.And what went wrong is that the Turks cheated on the percentage of land they agreed i.e they took much more. However much to my surprise all TC members of this forum considered it an absolute nonsense....

Which reliable historian(s) or political analyst(s) came to a conclusion like that re brother? Can you give us some reference sources? There was no need for such a stupid game at all...


On 15th of July Sampson backed by Junta was in power in Cyprus. They could easily made an open statement about it and then invite Turkey to officially talk about partition... Who would prevent them doing that? Moreover, you believe that the coup was organized by CIA.


Junta and Turkey agreed upon double Enosis(Weird how could those vendeta brothers trust each other?) under assistance of CIA but Turks cheated and double Enosis couldn't have been achieved. Soon after the events of 1974, they started to negotiate about re-unification on a bi-zonal, bi-communal basis... Fully inconsistent...

[pantelis]

Junta and Turkey agreed upon double Enosis(Weird how could those vendeta brothers trust each other?) under assistance of CIA but Turks cheated and double Enosis couldn't have been achieved. Soon after the events of 1974, they started to negotiate about re-unification on a bi-zonal, bi-communal basis... Fully inconsistent...

Those "Vendetta Brothers" as you call them, had a common denominator. They did not have to have a direct communication line nor did they need to know all the details of the role of the other side. At least the Greek and GC idiots didn't.
The concept of Double Enosis or its disguise into an Annan Plan, were invented in 1974 or in 2003.


http://www.cyprus-conflict.net/acheson_plan.htm

[pantelis]

VII The First Years of the Republic (1960-1963)

1960 Cyprus - an independent republic - established on August 15, Makarios president. Initial efforts at governing under the new constitution.

1961 Disputes over certain basic articles: separate municipalities, public service and Cypriot army ratio, taxes. TCs veto tax law.

1962 Failure to agree on separate municipalities; continuing gridlock and terrorism. April, murder of two Turkish Cypriot journalists, Hikmet and Gurkhan, who advocated intercommunal cooperation.

1963 Constitutional crisis after court rulings: taxes imposed but cannot be collected; ruling against both sides on municipalities issue. Akritas Plan formed. Makarios submitted 13 points for constitutional reform to Küçük to revise the constitution; rejected by Turkey.

VIII Constitutional Breakdown and Intercommunal Conflict (1963-1967)

1963 Dec 21, intercommunal violence explodes. Truce force set up with British troops, Greek & Turkish liaison officers. Ceasefire after Turkish jets buzzed Nicosia. Casualties in first ten days (known dead & missing presumed dead): TCs, 136, GCs 30.

1964 January, London Conference. British, US efforts to create NATO force. Makarios announces abrogation of treaties (then backs away); TCs want partition. Denktash summoned to Ankara, return to Cyprus barred until 1968. NATO plan rejected by Makarios. February, brutal attacks on TC civilians in Limassol. March, UNFICYP established; British troops on island seconded to UN force. National Guard put under command of Greek army general. Some 20,000 TCs flee areas where violence occurred, taking refuge in enclaves; some Turkish villages looted and destroyed. June, Turkish invasion threatened. Grivas returns to command Greek army contingent; expanded control to National Guard leading Greek commander to resign. President Johnson's letter to Inonu deterring invasion; Acheson Plan for "double enosis" proposed and rejected. August, arms & men imported by both sides. GC attack on and capture of TC villages in the Tylliria area in effort to control the coastline led to Turkish bombing of GC villages which included the use of napalm. Ceasefire arranged.

1965 U.N. mediator Galo Plaza issues controversial report, and is withdrawn.

1966 Talks between Turkey and Greece

1967 Military coup in Greece; secret talks with Turkey. Grivas orders attack of TC villages; threat of Turkish invasion; recall of Grivas & thousands of excess Greek troops. Provisional TC administration created in enclaves.

IX Divisions Among Greek Cypriots (1967-1974)

1968 Makarios re-elected overwhelmingly; acknowledges that enosis is not realistic. Restrictions on TCs lifted. Intercommunal talks began.

1970 EOKA-B attempts to assassinate Makarios; Georgadjis murdered.

1971 Talks deadlocked on local autonomy issue. Secret Greek-Turkish talks. Return of Grivas; EOKA-B attacks on GC left & supporters of independence.

1972 Intercommunal talks resumed and expanded

1973 Col. Papadopoulos overthrown by Ioannides in Athens

1974 Death of Grivas; Greek junta takes control of EOKA-B. Near breakthrough in talks, negotiators agreed on proposal for local autonomy. Turkish PM Ecevit statement stipulating federation; talks broken off by Clerides.

X Coup, Invasions, and de facto Partition (1974)

1974 July 15, Greek junta supports EOKA-B coup, led by Nicos Sampson, against Makarios; Makarios survives assassination attempts, flees to London; Sampson Agovernment@ takes power. July 20, Turkish military intervention. Actions, or lack of, by UK & US. Greek junta & Sampson regimes fall; Clerides becomes Acting President of Cyprus; democratic government returns to Greece. Ceasefire declared. Mid-August, Collapse of peace talks in Geneva: Second Turkish military intervention in August in which 6,000 die; Turks control of 37% of island; between 150,000 and 200,000 GC refugees take flight. Return of Makarios in autumn.

http://www.cyprus-conflict.net/chronology.htm

[pantelis]

http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&lr=& ... +enosis%22


http://sdi.sagepub.com/cgi/reprint/35/1/27.pdf

[pantelis]

Which of positions could be acceptable today by the opposite side?
How far is the present day situation from the Turkish demands below, or the Annan Plan?
Any suggestions?

IV. Positions of the Parties Concerned and Efforts at Mediation

A. Initial Positions of the Parties and Efforts at Mediation

61. I regard it as important to a full understanding of the Cyprus problem in itself and of my own approach towards its solution to explain, firstly, where the parties stood at the beginning of the United Nations' efforts at mediation. for this purpose I have examined the documents, records and notes left by my predecessor, and whenever possible I have, in my own consultations with the parties concerned verified the positions described and the developments recorded. These are summarized in the following paragraphs.

(a) The Greek-Cypriot community

62. The attitude of the Greek-Cypriot community towards the future of Cyprus, as explained orally by many of its qualified representatives during the first phase of mediation and as formally stated on 13 May 1964 by Archbishop Makarios, President of the Republic, started from the stand that the Republic was founded on agreements (those of Zurich and London) which did not emanate from the free will of the people but were imposed upon them. Archbishop Makarios stated that the only alternatives open to him were either to sign the agreements as they stood or to reject them entirely, and that in view of the grave situation which would have ensued upon their rejection he had felt obliged to sign them.

63. Further, the Constitution based on these agreements was put into force on 16 August 1960, and the Treaties of Guarantee and Alliance were given constitutional force in it, without being approved either by the people of Cyprus directly or in constituent assembly by representatives duly elected for the purpose.

64. The Greek-Cypriot case cited the lesser numerical strength of the "Turkish minority", and its lesser ownership of land and contribution to public expenditure, as not justifying the Turkish community having been "put on the same level with regard to the exercise of political powers in the State with the Greek majority". It rejected the argument that the Turkish-Cypriots must be treated differently from other minorities in other countries because they formed part of the Turkish people of the nearby mainland and because their language, religion, customs and national aspirations were different from those of the Greeks of Cyprus.

65. The Greek-Cypriots maintained that besides the provisions based on the concept of "political communal segregation", the existing Constitution suffered from another fundamental defect in that its "Basic Articles" could not be amended. They considered that while such a provision might have political significance, it was of no legal value because the present constituent power had no right to restrict the constituent power of the future. Moreover, the Treaties of Guarantee and Alliance constituted an unacceptable limitation of the independence of Cyprus, in that they allowed interference with its domestic affairs.

66. From these premises, the Greek-Cypriots argued that the whole concept on which the present Constitution is based was entirely wrong, and that "completely new foundations" must be laid. For this purpose they put forward certain general principles, while insisting--since popular approval of the Constitution was one of those principles- that the details must be formulated by a constituent assembly.

67. In summary, these principles envisaged Cyprus becoming "a completely independent, unitary, integral, sovereign State", unfettered by any treaties and with all powers emanating from the people, who would be entitled to decide the future of their country on the basis of "the internationally accepted principle of self-determination". The constitution should be founded on the principle that the political majority at any election should govern and the political minority constitute the opposition. Elections would be by general suffrage on a common roll; all legislative power would be exercised by a single-chamber elected parliament, to which the executive power would be answerable; and the judicial power would be vested in an independent, unified judiciary.

68. Human rights should be safeguarded for all persons and entrenched in the constitution. Some domestic judicial remedies would be established, as well as a right of individual appeal to the European Commission on Human Rights. All "communities and minorities" should have complete autonomy in religious matters and certain aspects of personal status, such as marriage and divorce, and in the administration of religious properties. In the realm of education and culture they should also be guaranteed certain rights, but the general responsibility for education should lie with the Government.

69. Most amendments to the constitution should require a two-thirds majority vote of the total membership of the parliament, followed by approval by an absolute majority (five-sixths majority in the case of communal rights) of the total membership after a new general election.

(b) The Turkish Cypriot community

70. The point of departure of the attitude of the representatives of the Turkish-Cypriot community, as reiterated on many occasions during the firs phase of mediation, and as formally stated in a memorandum submitted by the Vice-President of the Republic, Dr. Fazil Kuchuk, was that their greatest concern was the security of life and property of a people who were not a mere minority but a distinct community in their own right. From this view- point they did not object to the existing Constitution as such, but rather to the way in which it had been, in their opinion misapplied by the representatives of the Greek-Cypriot community.

71. They claimed that the recent events had proved that the various contractual and actual guarantees provided in the past were insufficient to meet the needs of their community for security. Additional and more effective guarantees must therefore be secured.

72. The additional guarantees, they maintained, could best be obtained by providing a geographical basis for the state of affairs created by the Zurich and London Agreements. In short, they wished to be physically separated from the Greek community. Their first inclination had been to seek this separation through the outright physical partitioning of Cyprus between the Turkish and Greek nations of which in their opinion the Turkish and Greek communities constituted an extension. However, "considering that this would not be willingly agreed to by Greek and Cypriot-Greeks", they modified this concept to that of creating a federal State over the physical separation of the two communities.

73. Their proposal envisaged a compulsory exchange of population in order to bring about a state of affairs in which each community would occupy a separate part of the island. The dividing line was in fact suggested: to run from the village of Yalia on the north-western coast through the towns of Nicosia in the centre, and Famagusta in the east. The zone lying north of this line was claimed by the Turkish-Cypriot community; it is said to have an area of about 1,084 square miles or 38 per cent of the total area of the Republic. An exchange of about 10,000 Greek families for about the same number of Turkish families was contemplated.

74. Each of the two separate communal areas would enjoy self-government in all matters falling outside federal affairs. Each could have cultural and economic relations directly with Greece or Turkey as the case might be. Each area could also enter into international agreements with Greece or Turkey as the case might be to regulate "relations of neighbourhood such as the provision of a certain special pass system" between that area and Greece or Turkey.

75. To the federal authorities would be reserved the subjects of foreign affairs, defence, the federal budget, customs; commerce, banking currency, standards of measurement, nationality, passport matters, post and telecommunications services and criminal legislation and jurisdiction. The federal legislature would consist a House of Representatives composed of 30 percent Turkish and 70 percent Greek community representatives, and a Senate divided equally between the two. The federal President and Vice-President would be elected by the Greek and Turkish communities respectively. The 30-70 ratio would be maintained for the Council of Ministers and the Public Service, and the 40-60 ratio for a small federal army and a police force for customs, traffic and tourist affairs.

76. Among other general principles reflecting those of the existing Constitution, the union of the Federal Republic with another State, or the partitioning of the island, would be prohibited under national and international undertakings. The provisions of the Treaties of Alliance and Guarantee would continue to form an integral part of the Constitution.

http://www.cyprus-conflict.net/galo_plaza_report.htm

[insan]

Put aside the political stance of ultra-nationalists, mainland policies over Cyprus, efforts of foreign countries seeking a solution which would satisfy all relevant parties; it seems even the most "moderate" people of Cyprus are not capable to reach a common point of view on basic principles of the solution. Anyway, keep discussing it! You have nothing to loose but learn new things and get details of some important issues...


Hope someday we can go one step further for the sake of a just and viable solution...