Cyprus-Forum.com

[Pyrpolizer]

Excellent analyses Kifeas.

I hope Bananiot will read and understand them.

After he is done with his flies i.e

[Kikapu]

Secondly, the reason the GC side PROPOSED (and not unilaterally attempted) changes to the constitution was NOT because the constitution was a case of two equal partners (because such was not the case anyway,) but because it ruled it to have been unworkable, inefficient and unfair in terms of proportionality (70:30 instead of 80:20 that was the closest round ratio.).

Kifeas,

So, do you believe, if the TC's agreed to a 80%-20%, that would have satisfied Makarios, because I don't think that was the problem. Would you want to destroy a country based on who had how many people working to whom and where. I really do not think so. Makarios did not want the TC's to have any say so at all in running the country, hence the problems that followed.

[Bananiot]

Kifeas said

The GC side proposed changes and invited the TCs for discussion on the basis of those proposed changes, something which Turkey (without having the right to voice its opinion) rejected it, before the TCs even gave their reply.

That is a pathetic lie and as such it serves no purpose whatsoever. Turkey and Greece were guarantor powers and both had their say on the matter. Both reccommended caution, Karamanlis and Inonu. Makarios even went to Ankara and Inonu gave him some very sound, friendly and honest advise.

Kifeas said

Secondly, the reason the GC side PROPOSED (and not unilaterally attempted) changes to the constitution was NOT because the constitution was a case of two equal partners (because such was not the case anyway,) but because it ruled it to have been unworkable, inefficient and unfair in terms of proportionality (70:30 instead of 80:20 that was the closest round ratio.)

This is a horrible lie! Kifeas still thinks that Turkish Cypriots are people with low intelligence that can easily be taken for a ride. Well, this may have been conventional wisdom over the years but we have paid dearly for entertaining such a notion. Everything behind Makarios's action had to do with enosis. To say and to repeat ad nauseum that it was just a proposition and that if you reject it we go back to square one and no love is lost, shows total direspect and utter ignorance of how politics are shaped.

Kifeas said

The 1960 constitution, in its LETTER, was not PARTNERSHIP as such, set aside one between two EQUAL partners. The closed description one can give as to what IN FACT it was, should only be that the 1960 constitution as an ARRANGEMENT as to how the people of Cyprus -divided in two communities- would express and exercise their inherent political rights as Cypriot Citizens, with some excessively strong and counter productive provisions in order to secure that the smallest community of the two would not be marginalized, as it could or might have been the case in a simple one-man-one-vote direct democracy system. It was not a partnership as such, and it was not a partnership of two equal partners either, by its letter; even though, as I said, one may, by inference to its spirit, claim that it was a kind of a partnership notion.

Bingo! It took him a long time - if he were pregnant he would be in labour for 3 days and nights - but finally he sput it out.

[Bananiot]

Let us examine further and see how "innocent" the "proposition" was. In 1961, Makarios sends Yiorkatzis to Athens to ask for weapons to be sent to cyprus from the Foreign Secretary, Averoff. The FS was furious and gave Yiorkatzis 2 minutes to leave his office before he called in the guards. Yiorkatzis went directly to George Papadopoulos (colonel who led the coup in 1967) and soon he sent the first 1000 guns with the instruction, do not tell anyone. He sent them with the Greek contingent of the Greek force that was stationed in Cyprus (ELDYK) as a reslt of the London - Zurich agreements. The arms were dished out to the gangs of Lissarides, Sampson and Yiorkatzis.

The organisation of the armed conflict with the Turkish Cypriots was the work of "IDEA". All the plans were prepared by Dimitrios Ioannides, another junta colonel who at the time served with ELDYK. Makarios, in an interview with Oriana Falaci had this to say: One morning, Ioannides visited me at my office, accompanied by Nikos Sampson. He bowed and kissed my hand. Here is the plan, he told me. We will attack suddenly the turkish cypriots and in no time we will get rid of them for ever. We will be done with them. I told him that I could not agree with him and I could not be part to the killing of so many innocent people.

The above incident shows that people high in the governement of Cyprus knew of the plans of these killers that later became despots in Greece. It is no secret that the command of the Organisation that Ioannides was training its members was at the back yard of the Presidential palace. The
house still stands today. Three close associates of Makarios were the leaders of the Organisation: Yiorkatzis, Papadopoulos and Klerides. A number of important meetings of the Organisation took place at the Summer House of Makarios on mount Troodos.

Makarios Droushiotis claims that Turkey knew of the plans of the Organisation and had them under close observation. Turkey would welcome an attack on Turkish Cypriot civilians. This would help Turkey advance her plans for an invasion. This is how we played with fire and eventually paid the price. Turkey could never invade, had we been ruled by sane people.

[Pyrpolizer]

Makarios Droushiotis claims that Turkey knew of the plans of the Organisation….

So all this comes from the Cypriot conspiracy theory maker Makarios Droushiotis.

Some truths, some lies, some fantasies, all mixed up to excite the batteries of Bananiot.

I have read the interview with Oriana Falaci, and I am not surprised how Droushiotis hides the juice of that conversation.

Moreover he claims that the commander of Eldyk that was stationed at Yerolakkos next to Turdyk at the road to Kyrenia was training a paramilitary group at the backyard of the presidential palace! How they were trained without a single gun shot ever heard I don’t know. Such a vivid imagination…..!!!!

The most stricking of his recent conspiracy theories is the one that says that the Russians vetoed the matter of the Annan Plan passing through the security council just before the referendum, not because they sided with us, but because Erdogan asked them to do so! I may translate the whole conspiracy theory someday and present it here.

Bananiot do us all a favor. Stop reading the nonsense of Makarios Droushiotis. Not even one radio or TV channel invites him to speak anymore.

[Kifeas]

Secondly, the reason the GC side PROPOSED (and not unilaterally attempted) changes to the constitution was NOT because the constitution was a case of two equal partners (because such was not the case anyway,) but because it ruled it to have been unworkable, inefficient and unfair in terms of proportionality (70:30 instead of 80:20 that was the closest round ratio.).

Kifeas,

So, do you believe, if the TC's agreed to a 80%-20%, that would have satisfied Makarios, because I don't think that was the problem. Would you want to destroy a country based on who had how many people working to whom and where. I really do not think so. Makarios did not want the TC's to have any say so at all in running the country, hence the problems that followed.

Kikapu, no one can claim to know without any doubt what Makarios intentions were. I hope we agree on that. Therefore, we cannot judge him on his intentions either, because it would be foolish to want to judge someone for something which you cannot be able do not know for certain what it was. We only judge people on the basis of actions, and the results, outcomes and consequences that those actions bring about.

What we know is that Makarios did not like the constitution, right from the beginning, for various known and perhaps also some unknown or undisclosed reasons. The known reasons are the ones he provided himself, and they are the ones I mentioned before (above.) Perhaps one of those undisclosed reasons was also his presumed desire to bring Enosis about. We have the Akritas plan which some of his associates presumably wrote, in which there is reference to enosis as the ultimate goal. However, the Akritas plan became known to the public and to the TCs, in 1966, 3 years after he had proposed the constitutional changes, besides the fact that we do not know for sure if Makarios was aware of its existence or not, and that it was not instead an initiative taken by those presumed to have written it. Most likely he was aware of its existence and its content and that he had also authorised its inception, but there are also chances he was not.

I am not Bananiot to play the disgusting and despicable game of intentionally misrepresenting assumptions and speculations -no matter how reasonable they may be sometimes, as mere undisputed facts, with the sole aim of creating impressions and manipulating history to serve my objectives. In that sense, Bananiot is at least an intentional liar and falsifier.

Now, on your question above! The 80:20 was just one aspect of his proposals for constitutional changes. The other most important ones were the abolishment of separate majorities in the parliament and the abolishment of the veto rights of both the president and the vice-president. In view of them, no I do not believe he would have been satisfied with a mere reduction to of TC participation to 80:20 ratio. Nevertheless, regardless of the extensiveness and gravity of those 13 point proposals and the pre-mature timing that he had chosen to make them, they were mere proposals which the TC leadership could have chosen to negotiate them, not because it was obliged to do so but in order to diffuse the tension that was growing between the two communities. Perhaps the 1963 /64 events, which were the very result of the growing and saturation tension, might have been avoided entirely, if the leaderships of the two communities would have entered into negotiations on the basis of those proposals, or of even on the basis more watered down proposals. The TC side was not obliged to have accepted all of those proposals, nor to have accepted some of them precisely in exactly the way they were stipulated in Makarios list. For example, on the issue of the abolishment of separate majorities, the TC side could have countered proposed the adoption of laws on the basis of simple all house majority plus a minimum participation in the formation of this majority from let’s say 20% or 25% or 30% of the TC group of MPs, something which was also provided in the case of the Annan plan. Instead of this, we have the upfront complete rejection of any discussion from the part of Turkey, before the TCs themselves communicate to the GC side their opinion. Of course, after Turkey rejected them, the TCs also did so.

Now, Bananiot, the notorious GC promoter and defender of the Turkish propaganda positions, claims that Turkey had a right to have had a saying in all the above. This is not true, and Turkey’s rejection in the place of the TCs was clearly an intervention beyond its rights and obligations. Cyprus, as a member of the UN it protected by the UN Charter which allows its people to regulate their internal constitutional affairs sovereignly, and the existence of any provision of any treaty that is in contravention to the UN charter, is automatically subordinated to the UN Charter. The UN charter is the ultimate international law document. This is also why the Turkish invasion in 1974 is deemed illegal by international law, simply because it violated the UN Charter, regardless of the provisions of the treaty of guarantee.

[Kifeas]

Kifeas said

The GC side proposed changes and invited the TCs for discussion on the basis of those proposed changes, something which Turkey (without having the right to voice its opinion) rejected it, before the TCs even gave their reply.

That is a pathetic lie and as such it serves no purpose whatsoever. Turkey and Greece were guarantor powers and both had their say on the matter. Both reccommended caution, Karamanlis and Inonu. Makarios even went to Ankara and Inonu gave him some very sound, friendly and honest advise.

Kifeas said

Secondly, the reason the GC side PROPOSED (and not unilaterally attempted) changes to the constitution was NOT because the constitution was a case of two equal partners (because such was not the case anyway,) but because it ruled it to have been unworkable, inefficient and unfair in terms of proportionality (70:30 instead of 80:20 that was the closest round ratio.)

This is a horrible lie! Kifeas still thinks that Turkish Cypriots are people with low intelligence that can easily be taken for a ride. Well, this may have been conventional wisdom over the years but we have paid dearly for entertaining such a notion. Everything behind Makarios's action had to do with enosis. To say and to repeat ad nauseum that it was just a proposition and that if you reject it we go back to square one and no love is lost, shows total direspect and utter ignorance of how politics are shaped.

Let's see who is lying from the two of us, and who is misrepresenting and skewing the facts and the truth. Everybody just read the following, and make your own conclusions. Even the heading of the memorandum accompanying Makarios proposals to the TC vice-president Kutchuk is termed as: "Suggested measures to facilitate the smooth functioning of the state and remove certain causes of inter-communal friction"

from:
http://www.cyprus-conflict.net/13_points.htm

The 13 Points: November 1963
The amendments to the constitution proposed by Makarios were fundamental in every respect, essentially altering the basis of the Aethnic@ arrangement for political governance. In this sense, then, the 13 Points must be seen as rewriting the treaties and governing instruments for all of Cyprus. Makarios, who certainly had legitimate complaints about the political paralysis that the 1959 accords had produced, acted unilaterally, without consultation with the Turkish Cypriot leadership, and this itself became a source of friction. In a note attached to these points and the accompanying memorandum, Makarios said he was taking this radical step because the constitution as written by Greece and Turkey had created "difficulties in the smooth functioning of the State and impede the development of the country. In this respect I transmit herewith for your information a Memorandum setting out the immediate measures, which I consider necessary, to meet the situation. I have today conveyed the attached Memorandum to the Vice- President, Dr. Kutchuk, inviting him to talks with a view to resolving the various difficulties set out in the Memorandum. I have arrived at the decision to take this initiative in my earnest desire to remove certain causes of anomaly and friction between Greeks and Turks which prevent them from co-operating, to this grave detriment of the country. It is hoped that the Turkish Cypriots, after carefully studying this Memorandum, will agree that my proposals are both realistic and constructive." They did not.

One reason Makarios acted so peremptorily was because he had consulted with Sir Arthur Clark, the British High Commissioner (ambassador) in Cyprus, who apparently had signaled his approval. Makarios believed this meant that the British Government would back his constitutional overhaul, which turned out to be a false expectation.

Below are the 13 Points, with an explanation following, contained in the text of letters Makarios sent to the prime ministers of Greece, Turkey, and Britain, on November 29, 1963.

(Note: the above represent the views of the above linked website's article writer.)
_______________________________________________________

Suggested measures to facilitate the smooth functioning of the state and remove certain causes of inter-communal friction

The Constitution of the Republic of Cyprus, in its present form, creates many difficulties in the smooth government of the State and impedes the development and progress of the country. It contains many sui generis provisions conflicting with internationally accepted democratic principles and creates sources of friction between Greek and Turkish Cypriots. At the Conference at Lancaster House in February, 1959, which I was invited to attend as leader of the Greek Cypriots, I raised a number of objections and expressed strong misgivings regarding certain provisions of the Agreement arrived at in Zurich between the Greek and the Turkish Governments and adopted by the British Government. I tried very hard to bring about the change of at least some provisions of that Agreement. I failed, however, in that effort and I was faced with the dilemma either of signing the Agreement as it stood or of rejecting it with all the grave consequences which would have ensued. In the circumstances I had no alternative but to sign the Agreement. This was the course dictated to me by necessity. The three years' experience since the coming into operation of the Constitution, which was based on the Zurich and London Agreements, has made clear the necessity for revision of at least some of those provisions which impede the smooth functioning and development of the State. I believe that the intention of those who drew up the Agreement at Zurich was to create an independent State, in which the interests of the Turkish Community were safeguarded, but it could not have been their intention that the smooth functioning and development of the country should be prejudiced or thwarted as has in fact been the case. One of the consequences of the difficulties created by certain constitutional provisions is to prevent the Greeks and Turks of Cyprus from co-operating in a spirit of understanding and friendship, to undermine the relations between them and cause them to draw further apart instead of closer together, to the detriment of the well being of the people of Cyprus as a whole. This situation causes me, as President of the State, great concern. It is necessary to resolve certain of the difficulties by the removal of some at least of the obstacles to the smooth functioning and development of the State. With this end in view I have outlined below the immediate measures which I propose to be taken.

1. The right of veto of the President and the Vice-President of the Republic to be abolished.

2. The Vice-President of the Republic to deputise for or replace the President of the Republic in case of his temporary absence or incapacity to perform his duties. In consequence, therefore, all the constitutional provisions in respect of joint action by the President and the Vice-President of the Republic to be modified accordingly.

3. The Greek President of the House of Representatives and its Turkish Vice-President to be elected by the House as a whole and not as at present the President by the Greek Members of the House and the Vice-President by the Turkish Members of the House.

4. The Vice-President of the House of Representatives to deputise for or replace the President of the House in case of his temporary absence or incapacity to perform his duties.

5. The constitutional provisions regarding separate majority for enactment of Laws by the House of Representatives to be abolished.

6. The constitutional provision regarding the establishment of separate Municipalities in the five main towns to be abolished. Provision should be made so that: (a) The Municipal Council in each of the aforesaid five towns shall consist of Greek and Turkish Councillors in proportion to the number of the Greek and Turkish inhabitants of such town by whom they shall be elected respectively. (b) In the Budget of each of such aforesaid towns, after deducting any expenditure required for common services, a percentage of the balance proportionate to the number of the Turkish inhabitants of such town shall be earmarked and disposed of in accordance with the wishes of the Turkish Councillors. 7. The constitutional provision regarding Courts consisting of Greek Judges to try Greeks and of Turkish Judges to try Turks and of mixed Courts consisting of Greek and Turkish Judges to try cases where the litigants are Greeks and Turks to be abolished.

8. The division of the Security Forces into Police and Gendarmerie to be abolished, (Provision to be made in case the Head of the Police is a Greek the Deputy Head to be a Turk and vice versa).

9. The numerical strength of the Security Forces and of the Army to be determined by Law and not by agreement between the President and the Vice-President of the Republic.

10. The proportion of the participation of Greek and Turkish Cypriots in the composition of the Public Service and of the Forces of the Republic, i.e. the Police and the Army, to be modified inproportion to the ratio of the population of Greek and Turkish Cypriots.

11. The number of the members of the Public Service Commission to be reduced from ten to either five or seven.

12. All the decisions of the Public Service Commission to be taken by simple majority. If there is an allegation of discrimination on the unanimous request either of the Greek or of the Turkish members of the Commission, its Chairman to be bound to refer the matter to the Supreme Constitutional Court.

13. The Greek Communal Chamber to be abolished".

ARCHBISHOP MAKARIOS, President of the Republic of Cyprus

On the above link of the website there is also a more detailed description and explanation of the 13 proposed changes, should anyone wishes to understand them better.

[Kikapu]

[Now, on your question above! The 80:20 was just one aspect of his proposals for constitutional changes. The other most important ones were the abolishment of separate majorities in the parliament and the abolishment of the veto rights of both the president and the vice-president. In view of them, no I do not believe he would have been satisfied with a mere reduction to of TC participation to 80:20 ratio. Nevertheless, regardless of the extensiveness and gravity of those 13 point proposals and the pre-mature timing that he had chosen to make them, they were mere proposals which the TC leadership could have chosen to negotiate them, not because it was obliged to do so but in order to diffuse the tension that was growing between the two communities. .

Kifeas,

As always you lay out your case very well, so here is the 64 Thousand Dollar question. As you know, there were 48 "unalterable" provisions (or articles if you preffer) in the Costitution. How many of the 13 points of proposals were within the 48 "unalterable" provisions, which the British,Greece and Turkey were part of signatory of guarantors to the Constitution, so really, was there a chance in hell, that any of the 13 points of proposals could have been changed, if any of them fell into the 48"unalterable" provisions. Some of the points you mentioned, were really major ones, so my guess is, they were in the "48". There would have been a very good reason to have put them amongst the 48 "unalterables", so to make sure neither side would attempt to change them, as to give the New Republic a chance to grow with both the communities at the helm. So Makarios had no where to turn, except to ignore the whole Constitution, and the 1963 crises ignited. He could have of course, chose to live with it as it would have been better than being under the British rule. So I don't know how much blame you can put on the TC's or even on Turkey, when infact, at the end of the day, Makarios had the last say, and unfortunetly, that was war, and the rest is history.

[Kifeas]

[Now, on your question above! The 80:20 was just one aspect of his proposals for constitutional changes. The other most important ones were the abolishment of separate majorities in the parliament and the abolishment of the veto rights of both the president and the vice-president. In view of them, no I do not believe he would have been satisfied with a mere reduction to of TC participation to 80:20 ratio. Nevertheless, regardless of the extensiveness and gravity of those 13 point proposals and the pre-mature timing that he had chosen to make them, they were mere proposals which the TC leadership could have chosen to negotiate them, not because it was obliged to do so but in order to diffuse the tension that was growing between the two communities. .

Kifeas,

As always you lay out your case very well, so here is the 64 Thousand Dollar question. As you know, there were 48 "unalterable" provisions (or articles if you preffer) in the Costitution. How many of the 13 points of proposals were within the 48 "unalterable" provisions, which the British,Greece and Turkey were part of signatory of guarantors to the Constitution, so really, was there a chance in hell, that any of the 13 points of proposals could have been changed, if any of them fell into the 48"unalterable" provisions. Some of the points you mentioned, were really major ones, so my guess is, they were in the "48". There would have been a very good reason to have put them amongst the 48 "unalterables", so to make sure neither side would attempt to change them, as to give the New Republic a chance to grow with both the communities at the helm. So Makarios had no where to turn, except to ignore the whole Constitution, and the 1963 crises ignited. He could have of course, chose to live with it as it would have been better than being under the British rule. So I don't know how much blame you can put on the TC's or even on Turkey, when infact, at the end of the day, Makarios had the last say, and unfortunetly, that was war, and the rest is history.

No kikapu, there were no unalterable provisions in the constitution, should we, the people of Cyprus, alone, in a referendum, would have decided so. No matter what the treaties implied, it became irrelevant from the moment Cyprus was accepted by the UN as one of its member states. From then on, what counts is what the UN charter says. In terms of international law, any treaties contravening the Charter -becasue of allowance of the right to any foreign country to have a say and a role in Cyprus's internal constitutional affairs, are subordinated to the provisions of the UN charter. The UN charter says that every member country has the right to sovereignly regulate its internal affairs, without any other country having the right to interfere and impose its will -with treaties or without treaties. As far as the particular issue is concerned, the treaties were essentially nullified, or better, buried under the UN Charter, which is the ultimate of international law.

[Kikapu]

[Now, on your question above! The 80:20 was just one aspect of his proposals for constitutional changes. The other most important ones were the abolishment of separate majorities in the parliament and the abolishment of the veto rights of both the president and the vice-president. In view of them, no I do not believe he would have been satisfied with a mere reduction to of TC participation to 80:20 ratio. Nevertheless, regardless of the extensiveness and gravity of those 13 point proposals and the pre-mature timing that he had chosen to make them, they were mere proposals which the TC leadership could have chosen to negotiate them, not because it was obliged to do so but in order to diffuse the tension that was growing between the two communities. .

Kifeas,

As always you lay out your case very well, so here is the 64 Thousand Dollar question. As you know, there were 48 "unalterable" provisions (or articles if you preffer) in the Costitution. How many of the 13 points of proposals were within the 48 "unalterable" provisions, which the British,Greece and Turkey were part of signatory of guarantors to the Constitution, so really, was there a chance in hell, that any of the 13 points of proposals could have been changed, if any of them fell into the 48"unalterable" provisions. Some of the points you mentioned, were really major ones, so my guess is, they were in the "48". There would have been a very good reason to have put them amongst the 48 "unalterables", so to make sure neither side would attempt to change them, as to give the New Republic a chance to grow with both the communities at the helm. So Makarios had no where to turn, except to ignore the whole Constitution, and the 1963 crises ignited. He could have of course, chose to live with it as it would have been better than being under the British rule. So I don't know how much blame you can put on the TC's or even on Turkey, when infact, at the end of the day, Makarios had the last say, and unfortunetly, that was war, and the rest is history.

No kikapu, there were no unalterable provisions in the constitution, should we, the people of Cyprus, alone, in a referendum, would have decided so. No matter what the treaties implied, it became irrelevant from the moment Cyprus was accepted by the UN as one of its member states. From then on, what counts is what the UN charter says. In terms of international law, any treaties contravening the Charter -becasue of allowance of the right to any foreign country to have a say and a role in Cyprus's internal constitutional affairs, are subordinated to the provisions of the UN charter. The UN charter says that every member country has the right to sovereignly regulate its internal affairs, without any other country having the right to interfere and impose its will -with treaties or without treaties. As far as the particular issue is concerned, the treaties were essentially nullified, or better, buried under the UN Charter, which is the ultimate of international law.

Kifeas, please read the 7th paragraph regarding the 48 "unalterable" articles. www.cyprus-conflict.net/narrative-main-2.htm