Cyprus-Forum.com

[insan]

The existence of a Turkish partition plan is also suggested in "The Cyprus Conspiracy" by O'Maley & Graig. In this book there is a report about a claim made by Richard Patrick that in 1963 "Turkish Cypriot leaders including Denktash, confirmed that they aimed to further the case for partition by provoking violent inter-ethnic incidents that would justify a Turkish invasion. They also wanted to create and direct a Turkish Cypriot refugee movement into the northern part of Cyprus" (p.91). There is no doubt that all this is in accord with the Turkish plan that I described earlier as well as with everything that happened.

The partition proposals of Turkey have always officially put on the table as an option to solve the Cyprus problem. This is not something unknown or hidden. Othellos, ask yourself this question: Why did Turkey wanted partition of Cyprus?

a) Because the ruling elite of Hellen's Enosis stance.

It is a known fact that, Hellen's ruling elite had organisedly been preparing the ground for Enosis from late 1800s until 50s

b) Turkey wanted partition because of a sole reason to secure her interests in East Mediterrenean.

c) Both of the above reasons

What was the real situation in these enclaves and why did the TC's need special permits to exit them? Why were there fines and other punishments for those TC's who left these Turkish controlled camps without permission? Why did the TMT silence TC voices for reconciliation and peace like for example the one of D. Kavazoglu? Were any of these actions the fault of the GC's? And why did the enclaves remain off limits for the GC's and in place even after 1968 when things in Cyprus started calming down? After all, thousands of TC's were already living outside the enclaves and thousands of those who were living in them would exit every day to work with the GC's. Was any of the above an indication that Turkey had ever abandoned its partition policy in Cyprus? I don't think so.

It is a well known fact that TMT composed of TCs with different ideological points of view... But the leadership of TMT mainly had an anti-communist stance...

Furthermore, was there any signals, developments on Hellen's side which might make Turkey to abandon the partition idea?

Simply put, erolz, the Turkish side was just as responsible for promoting and organizing violence in Cyprus.

The difference is while Turkish side was fighting for survival as either a politically equal partner of RoC or partition; Hellen's side was fighting for Enosis and "majority rule"(Dominate TCs)

One must remember that the Turkish plans for the partition of Cyprus date back in the mid / late 1950's at a time when the GC's were in no position to oppress or control anyone (on the contrary). You can say of course that "Taxim" was the Turkish reaction to the GC campaign for "Enosis". The problem is that after Independence, the Turkish partition policy remained in full effect whereas the GC aspirations for Union with Greece started fading away.

GCs were in no position to oppress or control anyone in 50s? Wasn't Enosis campaign which was organized by church and signed by %97 of GCs an overdosed oppression and provoking gaianst TCs?


What evidences made you think that GC aspirations for union with Greece started to fading away, after independence? Even the leftists too, were on Enosists side until 1966.

The fact is that, when US interfered in 1968 and pressurized Greece to call the gang leader of EOKA(Grivas) back to Athens and Makarios publicly declared that Enosis was no longer viable; no violance committed against any GCs, by TMT. Why?

What I think is that Turkey welcomed and even encouraged the 1963 crisis because it would have given them a perfect opportunity to invade – after all this is what they attempted in 1964. This also explains why back then and on several occasions it was the TC's who initiated unprovoked attacks against GC's, as they did for example in Paphos on 7/3/64. Had Turkey's plan succeeded at that time then the TC's would have not ended up staying in the enclaves for 11 years. But for a number of reasons, things did not work out for the Turks in 1963-64.

I thought there were enough reasons for TMT to retaliate EOKA'S assaults at the same vehemence. Can you tell us some about those unprovoked attacks against GCs(not against EOKA)?

Once again: had the TC's chosen to remain in the RoC and not follow Turkey's instructions to form a separate "entity" then the GC's would have never remained the sole participants in the RoC. Of course, the Turkish theory about being "kicked out" is a very convenient one as it can be used to "justify" their partition policy both before and after the 1974 invasion. As for the fact that the GC's were numerically more than the TC's, to me this explains the large number of Anatolian settlers that were carried over here by Turkey after the invasion in an attempt to alter permanently the island's demographic balances.

I'm telling you what would have happaned...GCs would have become the sole ruler of the RoC as a result of "majority rule" stance of Hellen's ruling elite. And then as a result of traditional Turco-Greco retaliations, majority of TCs would have to fled to the other countries.


Regarding the settlers; I really still can't understand how Turkey brought that much settlers to Cyprus and none of the concerned parties didn't seriously attempt to stop Turkey doing this until late 80s?


I tired of writing Othellos, please visit http://www.cyprus-conflict.net/zenon,%201963-74.htm to get more details and distinguish the inconsistence of your interpretations against the interpretations of a GC expert, Dr. stavrinides, regarding the events of 1967-74.

[insan]

Even to find out more, please visit http://www.state.gov/r/pa/ho/frus/johnsonlb/xvi/

[erolz]

A translation of this Turkish plan has been published in "My Deposition" by Glafkos Clerides (vol.1, pp. 217-222). ). [snip]

The existence of a Turkish partition plan is also suggested in "The Cyprus Conspiracy" by O'Maley & Graig. [snip]

I will seek out these sources you have given, read them and if appropriate give my views on them. I canot really comment before doing so.

"Some" GC's were displaced for a "number of days"? Is that all that the GC's suffered in 1963-64? If this is what you think then so much about you "recognizing" the suffering of the other side.

Again possibly a little 'unspecific' on my part - for which I appologise. My primary (independent) source for thise period and this issue is here

http://www.cyprus-conflict.net/patrick% ... pt%202.htm

A comparison of the 1960 and 1970 census figures indicates that there were possibly 12 mixed villages which have been wholly or partially evacuated by Greek-Cypriots because of inter-communal fighting between 21 December 1963 and 10 August 1964. The total number of Greek-Cypriots involved was 750 according to the 1960 census; however, field investigation indicates that very little of this rural Greek-Cypriot exodus can be attributed to the conflict. Probably less than 200 Greek-Cypriots from six mixed villages became refugees because of fighting or tension after 21 December 1963. The apparent evacuation of the other locations was due either to peculiarities in the census formats or to a general trend of rural depopulation resulting from urbanization.[61]

Official government figures[62] indicate that in 1967 442 Greek-Cypriot owned houses were in Turkish-Cypriot hands, or were abandoned either because they had been damaged by fighting or because of their proximity to dangerous areas. These figures however do not indicate the number of these houses which had been leased to Turk-Cypriots when fighting began. These houses were distributed among six towns: 236 in Nicosia; 42 in Famagusta; 66 in Larnaca; 44 in Ktima; 12 in Polis; 42 in Lefka. During the street fighting which occurred in Nicosia, Larnaca and Ktima, it is probable that a few thousand Greek-Cypriots fled from their homes. However, the majority of these people were able to return in a matter of days. The total number of rural and urban Greek-Cypriots who could be classified as refugees at the end of 1970 was probably only a few hundred.

We know that the number of TC refugees that was reported by the UNSG in 1963 was about 4 or 5 times larger than the number of refugees that had been displaced due to the fighting and as this had been established by the independent committee. This leads to the logical conclusion that a large number of TC's moved into the enclaves for reasons that were not immediately related to the fighting. Fear form the GC's was obviously one such reason. But at the same time the intimidation of ordinary TC's by the TMT, and even the use of force against them where and when this was necessary is something that has been repeatedly discussed over the years and therefore cannot be dismissed.

Well here I will admit to misunderstading your previous post. I thought you were saying 1/4 to 1/5 of all TC refugees fled because of (direct) fighting therefor the remainder must have fled because of TMT pressure. It would seem from the above you were not saying that and accept of those that fled their homes that were not directly subject to 'fighting' (attacks) one of the reasons was fear of such attacks (from GC) in the future. I have always accepted that TMT played a role. My personal view (again backed up in the same reference as above) is that TMT had very little effect in making TC become refugess - that was primarily caused by either experience of GC attacks or fear of them. They had a much larger role in 'keeping' TC as refugees once they had fled than making them such in the first place.

What was the real situation in these enclaves and why did the TC's need special permits to exit them? Why were there fines and other punishments for those TC's who left these Turkish controlled camps without permission? Why did the TMT silence TC voices for reconciliation and peace like for example the one of D. Kavazoglu? Were any of these actions the fault of the GC's?

No these are not actions for which I hold the GC community reposnible.

My comment about short-sighted GC's was made with respect to the establishment of the TC enclaves (which were nothing more but fortified invasion bridgeheads).

Nothing more that fortified invasion bridgheads? They did not (also) offer some degree of very real protection for TC against equally real phyisical attack?

You write about "violence being promoted and organized by the GC’s" but I don't think that such a statement reflects the whole truth. Surely there was a secret GC militia (just like there was a TC one) that was mobilized during the 1963 crisis, but then again the crisis was not a one-way event that the GC's did not benefit from.

I said by the GC state (meaning GC leadership). For me the Akritas plan is clear evidence that there was organised and planned use of violence by GC (leadership) against TC. I am not saying it was a one way event. I do however think that it was primarily the GC leadership that wanted to force and create a crisis in order to change the agreements, more so than the TC leadership. As I see it the 1960 agreements were generally seen as a victory (vindication of our right as a commuity to some degree of political equality) and good result for the TC community by the TC leadership and the TC people. I think the perception of the GC and GC leadership was that the 1960 agreements were a 'faliure' and had to be changed with or without consent of the TC. Certainly there were elements on both sides for whom the crisis was a welcome means of achieving political aims - but I still believe that overwhealmingly this was more the case on the GC side than the TC side. Maybe I am wrong but this is my belief. I do not say it was a solely one way event, just mainly one way.

Yes there were combat deaths, murders kidnappings and refugees, but these actions were neither exclusively initiated / carried out by the GC’s as you claim, nor the victims were exclusively TC's.

I do not claim they were exclusively one sided - just that they were predomiantley one sided. Certainly in proportional terms and also in relative to populations sizes.

Simply put, erolz, the Turkish side was just as responsible for promoting and organizing violence in Cyprus.

I do find this ease at which 'blame and responsibility' can be so easily deemed to be equal on both communities confusing given how difficult it seems to be to get an acceptance that politicaly the two communities can be equal? Even if the responsibility was equal in proportion to the populations (which I do not think was the case - for the reasons outlined above), does this not mean that the GC side should consider itself 4 times more responsible because there was four times more of them? For me it _feels_ like TC should accept equality of their community when it comes to 'blame' and accept minority status when it comes to politcal power?

[snip]...problem is that after Independence, the Turkish partition policy remained in full effect whereas the GC aspirations for Union with Greece started fading away.

I am sorry but if the desire for Enosis in the GC people and their leaders 'statred to fade away' from 1960 onwards - it did not do so ton any substansive measure untial a considerable time later (and much later that 63-64). The documentary record of GC leaders 'words' from Makarios and others is clear on this in my view.

What I think is that Turkey welcomed and even encouraged the 1963 crisis because it would have given them a perfect opportunity to invade – after all this is what they attempted in 1964. This also explains why back then and on several occasions it was the TC's who initiated unprovoked attacks against GC's, as they did for example in Paphos on 7/3/64. Had Turkey's plan succeeded at that time then the TC's would have not ended up staying in the enclaves for 11 years. But for a number of reasons, things did not work out for the Turks in 1963-64.

My belief is that both Turkey and the TC community as a whole would have preffered for the 1960 agreements to have been honoured and implemented in the spirit and letter of them than any other alternatives. I believe that they were sufficent for Turkey and sufficent for TC had they been made to work. I do not think the same is true for the GC leadership (or Greece at various points). For Turkey and TC the agreements were seen as a 'good result' and for GC they were not - so it seems reasonable to me to conclude that the GC had more reason and desire to undermine these agreements than TC or Turkey. Having said all this I do not deny that there were TC contributed to 'creating' violence and crisis.

I thought that my earlier post with respect to this issue was very clear and I do not understand why you raise this question. Again, I think that ANY Cypriot (and that should also cover your aunt) is entitled to whatever belongs to them, no more and no less. Does this sound reasonable enough to you, or does it sound as another attempt to deprive TC's from their rights and properties?

With respect I do not feel you have answered my question here. This is obviously a very persoanl issue for me. Do you think my Aunt should be entitled to monetary 'compensation' (recognition of) her loss of her husband or do you think compensation is only due to those who lost property? That those who lost loved ones are not enentiled to compensation (or the justice of seeing her husbands killers prosecuted) . Or that she is entitled to compensation but not by the RoC (to any degree) but only from the individuals concerned and not from the state (which I maintain not only failed in a duty of care to people like her husband but were directly involed in inciting such attacks and thus have some responsibility and liability for what happened)?

Like I say this is a very personal issue for me. There is constant tlak of the pain and suffering and loss of those that lost property in Cyprus and the need to compensate those that suffered this loss. There seems to be no scuh concern for those who lost loves ones, that were innocent victims of the events? Or am I being over sensative here?

Once again: had the TC's chosen to remain in the RoC and not follow Turkey's instructions to form a separate "entity" then the GC's would have never remained the sole participants in the RoC. Of course, the Turkish theory about being "kicked out" is a very convenient one as it can be used to "justify" their partition policy both before and after the 1974 invasion.

Do you really believe that if TC had done nothing to resist GC attempts (proposals if you prefer) to reduce them to a political minority in Cyprus - against the very agrerments of the 1960 consitution, that the GC would have said ok we accept the 1960 agreements as written. We do not like them but have agreed to not change them so they will remain and we will work with them? That there would have been no violence against TC by GC? That everyhting would have been ok in Cyprus?

That the TC withdrew from governement undoubtedly had a political element as did the advice of the TC leadership for TC to not go into GC controlled areas. It did also have an element that was based on saftey and not political. This is clearly shown in the case of my uncle - who if he had listened to the advice (or been forced to as is claimed happened) of the TC leadership would most probably still be alive today.

This is the Turkish version of the amendments story. The fact remains that the TC side was asked by Makarios (who has been repeatedly criticised for his decision to make that proposal) to discuss the proposed amendments, but this never happened because even the idea of such a discussion was rejected right upfront (if I am not mistaken Turkey rejected it even before the TC's). Had this discussion ever taken place then one would be able to evaluate the stance of both sides with respect to each other's concerns (see my earlier post about the failure of Makarios and Kucuk to communicate honestly and effectively). In that case your claim about a "GC attempt to reduce the TC community into a political minority" would have either been totally justified or completely dismissed.

I am sorry but for me there is clear and compelling documentary evidence that Makarios was determined to force the TC to accept the GC ammendments (the reducing of the agreed status of the two communites in 1960 to a fundamantaly different balance) by any means necessary including the use of force. I would be more than willing to present this eveidence - but will not do so right now (this post has already taken me far longer to make than I currently have to spare). In summary I think it is disigenous to make out that there was no such determination from Makarios or his willingness to use any and all measures to achieve it or to make out that his position was simply to 'ask' the TC to accept these proposals and if they would not that would be the end of it.

After negotiations restarted in 1968, the Turkish side agreed to several Constitutional changes that were based on the 1963 amendment proposals. It is for this that one can only wonder about how much pain and suffering in Cyprus could have been averted if in 1963 the Turkish had taken the time to discuss and explain their concerns, positions and fears over the amendment proposals instead of just walking out of the RoC. Makarios has often been accused about having a tendency to do things on his own, but personally I believe that it would be impossible for him (or anyone else) to ignore the TC's if they stayed in the government.

As I understand it Kutchuk made it perfectly clear in 63 that they (we) were willing to discuss and negotiate changes that were based on the need to make the agreements function better. What they were not willig to negotiatie on were changes that would have fundamentaly changed the entire status of the two communites with respect to each other from that previous agreed and accepted.

Now about this majority – minority thing, no one is arguing that in the event of a solution the TC's must be deprived of their human rights or oppressed in any way by the GC's. But at the same time it is only fair that the reverse (oppression of GC’s by TC's) is also prevented. Is this unreasonable?

No it is not unreasonable but you have to be clear about rights as indivduals and rights as peoples. If you insist that the TC community can never be considered as anything more than a political minority you in effect deny the TC community it's right as a people. This is the core of this issue. As a people TC have a right to self determiantion that is equal to that of GC. You can argue that we are not a people and thus have no such rights but I personaly do not accept this argument. Ibelieve that we are a people in both the spirit of the declarations of the rights of peoples and in reality.

That was the same conference where Denktash asked for the relocation of thousands of Cypriots and the establishment of a separate TC region under thousands of Turkish troops that would equal to 38% of Cyprus, right? Now as to what Makarios planned to do in the first place, I am not sure that this is more important from WHAT he actually did, which was to propose those 13 amendments.

What is important, it seems to me, is was Makarios simply proposing that TC talk about ammedments or were his 'proposals' part of a startegy to force such changes on the TC community. It seems clear to me from the large amount of evidence available that his intention was to force the acceptance of the changes to the consistution. That such acceptance became a pre contidtion of any return of TC to government is just one such piece of 'eveidence'.

I am sorry Imust appologise but I will have to leave my reply to your here for the moment. I will try and come back and reply to the rest in due course.

[Othellos]

Insan
I am not sure about what you mean when you often refer to the "ruling Hellen(ic) elite". Can you please clarify?

U wrote:
"It is a well known fact that TMT composed of TCs with different ideological points of view... But the leadership of TMT mainly had an anti-communist stance... "

A question: did leftists participate in the TMT? Did they assume any leading roles or were they kept in the lower ranks?

U wrote:
"Furthermore, was there any signals, developments on Hellen's side which might make Turkey to abandon the partition idea?"

My understanding is that the Turkish side never really abandoned the idea of partition. One reason for this was that they never trusted the GC side enough. Another important reason was Turkey's anachronistic obsession about its "security" and the role of Cyprus in all this. It is also my opinion that to this date both of the above views are being maintained by the Turkish side and they do affect any kind of discussion / solution proposal on Cyprus.

U wrote:
"The difference is while Turkish side was fighting for survival as either a politically equal partner of RoC or partition; Hellen's side was fighting for Enosis and "majority rule"(Dominate TCs)"

While I do recognize the grave situation in which thousands of TC's had come between 1963-67, I do not accept that the GC’s bear the exclusive responsibility, despite their own mistakes. When it comes to what the TCs underwent before 1974 and especially between 1963 and 1967, I believe that the TC leadership and especially Turkey had a lot to do with it as well.

U wrote:
"GCs were in no position to oppress or control anyone in 50s? Wasn't Enosis campaign which was organized by church and signed by %97 of GCs an overdosed oppression and provoking gaianst TCs?"

I will try as a GC to give you my own perspective on Enosis starting from the time when Britain came to Cyprus. Back in 1915 the British offered Cyprus to Greece in exchange of her participation to WW I on the side of the allies. And during WW II, the British slogan while recruiting GC's in Cyprus was "for Freedom and Greece" (I do not know what slogan they used for the TC's). In 1950 Enosis was viewed by the GC's as the only way to get rid of Colonial rule at a time when other people around the world were revolting one after the other and this should come as no surprise to anyone. The Church assumed the role it did in the 1950 referendum and onward because historically they were the sole and undisputed leaders of the GC community. How do you think that Makarios came about?

U wrote:
"What evidences made you think that GC aspirations for union with Greece started to fading away, after independence? Even the leftists too, were on Enosists side until 1966."

I believe that at first Independence was not welcomed by many GC's who aspired Enosis, just as it was not welcomed by many TC's who aspired for the island's partition. But as I wrote: "aspirations for Union with Greece started fading away". Naturally this did not happen overnight, it did take some time and happened for a number of reasons, including the rapid economic development that GC's experienced. Despite the feelings of disappointment, "a public opinion poll as early as 1965, most Greek Cypriots voted for independence as a preferable political framework to enosis. By the time of the 1970 elections, the enosists failed to capture a single seat." ("Cyprus: origins of the present crisis – 1950s to 1970s", p.39). I am aware of certain speeches that were made by Makarios and where he still talked about Enosis - a clumsy thing to do, even if there were also other statements that were also made by him at different times and in which he declared Enosis as unviable. Was Makarios seeking improvements in the 1960 agreements in favour of the GC's, or was he trying to please his audience, especially at a time when he was facing internal problems because of EOKA B, or was he doing a bit of both?

U wrote:
"I thought there were enough reasons for TMT to retaliate EOKA'S assaults at the same vehemence. Can you tell us some about those unprovoked attacks against GCs(not against EOKA)?"

I have already mentioned one such example in which TC's carried out a major and unprovoked attack against GC civilians in Paphos on 7/3/64. The attack took place in the town's market and while people were shopping. 7 GC's were killed, 35 were injured and around 200 hostages were taken. There were other similar incidents elsewhere in Cyprus. And of course there were (provoked and unprovoked) attacks by GC's on TC's . Following the above described Turkish attack in Paphos there was a retaliatory attack by GC's and TC hostages were also taken. While one may feel "tempted" to question the term "unprovoked" considering what the climate was throughout the island in those days, the unacceptable fact that civilians from both sides were deliberately targeted made things only worse.

U wrote:
"I'm telling you what would have happaned...GCs would have become the sole ruler of the RoC as a result of "majority rule" stance of Hellen's ruling elite. And then as a result of traditional Turco-Greco retaliations, majority of TCs would have to fled to the other countries."

I understand that this was a main fear of the TC's. As I already wrote in another post, unfortunately Makarios and Kucuk failed to have an open and honest discussion about what was going on in Cyprus at the time. They could have discussed everything, including majority rule, "traditional" Greek-Turkish relations etc and avert the crisis.

U wrote:
"Regarding the settlers; I really still can't understand how Turkey brought that much settlers to Cyprus and none of the concerned parties didn't seriously attempt to stop Turkey doing this until late 80s?"

I do not think that there was much that the Cypriot Government could do to prevent this. If you were in their shoes, what would you have done?

U wrote:
"I tired of writing Othellos"

You???? Tired of writing? I thought I would never see this re

U wrote:
"please visit http://www.cyprus-conflict.net/zenon,%201963-74.htm to get more details and distinguish the inconsistence of your interpretations against the interpretations of a GC expert, Dr. stavrinides, regarding the events of 1967-74."

Thank you for the above link, Insan. That is an interesting article to read and I believe that to a great extend it does provide a fair description of the situation in Cyprus at that time. I also believe that it confirms several of the points that I have already made. The very last paragraph for example confirms my point about the idea of "Enosis" fading away. Quoting from the Z. Stavrinides article: "An important element in the picture is that the Greek population at large gradually abandoned their traditional zeal for enosis." I cannot understand why you consider what I say as "inconsistent".

O.





Erolz,

U wrote:
"Nothing more that fortified invasion bridgheads? They did not (also) offer some degree of very real protection for TC against equally real phyisical attack?"

Although I did mention earlier the justified fear that the TC's felt at that time, I understand your point. Obviously, what I wrote above indicates how the enclaves were seen from the GC point if view which in my opinion was just as justified.

U wrote:
"…… I think the perception of the GC and GC leadership was that the 1960 agreements were a 'faliure' and had to be changed with or without consent of the TC. Certainly there were elements on both sides for whom the crisis was a welcome means of achieving political aims - but I still believe that overwhealmingly this was more the case on the GC side than the TC side. Maybe I am wrong but this is my belief. I do not say it was a solely one-way event, just mainly one way."

The feeling of injustice between GC's because of the 1960 agreements was a real one and it is for this reason that they sought constitutional changes. I believe that other than that and except from the last phrase ("just mainly one way"), the rest of what you say above is fairly accurate. One must never forget that Turkey of course was also in the picture and had real aspirations over Cyprus.

U wrote:
"………… For me it _feels_ like TC should accept equality of their community when it comes to 'blame' and accept minority status when it comes to politcal power?"

I do not see it like this. Suppose that if we have 2 groups of people: one consists of 80 and the other one of 20. It only takes 2 idiots (one from each group) to start a fight and drag everyone in it. It is my view that in that case the blame with respect to who started the fight belongs to both equally and not 80-20%.

U wrote:
"I am sorry but if the desire for Enosis in the GC people and their leaders 'statred to fade away' from 1960 onwards - it did not do so ton any substansive measure untial a considerable time later (and much later that 63-64). The documentary record of GC leaders 'words' from Makarios and others is clear on this in my view."

Please scroll back and see what I wrote to Insan about this one.

U wrote:
"My belief is that both Turkey and the TC community as a whole would have preffered for the 1960 agreements to have been honoured and implemented in the spirit and letter of them than any other alternatives. I believe that they were sufficent for Turkey and sufficent for TC had they been made to work. I do not think the same is true for the GC leadership (or Greece at various points). For Turkey and TC the agreements were seen as a 'good result' and for GC they were not - so it seems reasonable to me to conclude that the GC had more reason and desire to undermine these agreements than TC or Turkey. Having said all this I do not deny that there were TC contributed to 'creating' violence and crisis."

Remember what I wrote earlier about the lack of trust between the GC and the TC's? The GC's insisted that the only way they could make the RoC a workable one was through Constitutional amendments. The TC's on the other hand, saw this as a GC attempt to take their rights away. I am once again repeating myself but had the GC and TC sides been sincere with one another about all this then perhaps we would have never gone through all the mess we did.

U wrote:
"With respect I do not feel you have answered my question here. This is obviously a very persoanl issue for me. Do you think my Aunt should be entitled to monetary 'compensation' (recognition of) her loss of her husband or do you think compensation is only due to those who lost property? That those who lost loved ones are not enentiled to compensation (or the justice of seeing her husbands killers prosecuted) . Or that she is entitled to compensation but not by the RoC (to any degree) but only from the individuals concerned and not from the state (which I maintain not only failed in a duty of care to people like her husband but were directly involed in inciting such attacks and thus have some responsibility and liability for what happened)?"

Perhaps I am still missing your point, but I do not think that the loss of a loved one can ever be adequately compensated with material goods. Properties are easy to deal with: they can be returned, repaired, rebuilt or compensated for. Human life is irreplaceable. If you have something to suggest on this one then I would be more than interested to read.

U wrote:
"Like I say this is a very personal issue for me. There is constant tlak of the pain and suffering and loss of those that lost property in Cyprus and the need to compensate those that suffered this loss. There seems to be no scuh concern for those who lost loves ones, that were innocent victims of the events? Or am I being over sensative here?"

I am sorry for your family's loss. I do not think that you are being oversensitive - who am I to judge you on this one anyway? Personally I would expect from all those who have suffered such a loss to be just as sensitive about the same loss of others regardless of who they happen to be, but again this is personal. Some may feel anger some may not. We are all human beings after all.

U wrote:
"Do you really believe that if TC had done nothing to resist GC attempts (proposals if you prefer) to reduce them to a political minority in Cyprus - against the very agrerments of the 1960 consitution, that the GC would have said ok we accept the 1960 agreements as written. We do not like them but have agreed to not change them so they will remain and we will work with them? That there would have been no violence against TC by GC? That everyhting would have been ok in Cyprus?"

I never said or believed that the TC's should have done nothing - this would be like taking them for idiots and that is insulting. All I said is that the TC's (and the GC's) should have talked more to resolve their problems without using guns. Makarios and the GC's should have been more sensitive to the concerns of the TC's and the TC's should have also looked at our concerns. Perhaps at that time this was easier said than done but still.

U wrote:
"That the TC withdrew from governement undoubtedly had a political element as did the advice of the TC leadership for TC to not go into GC controlled areas. It did also have an element that was based on saftey and not political. This is clearly shown in the case of my uncle - who if he had listened to the advice (or been forced to as is claimed happened) of the TC leadership would most probably still be alive today."

While I understand where the above comes from, what I am trying to explain is that any elements or ideas that promoted partition (such as the TC enclaves) these caused justified nervousness to the GC's. To put it simply erolz, for us GC’s Taxim has always been what Enosis is to you.

U wrote:
"…………As a people TC have a right to self determiantion that is equal to that of GC. You can argue that we are not a people and thus have no such rights but I personaly do not accept this argument. Ibelieve that we are a people in both the spirit of the declarations of the rights of peoples and in reality."

What I am trying to understand is are how far do you see your self-determination rights go and if these can violate my basic human rights, like for example the right to exist in my own homeland?

U wrote:
"What is important, it seems to me, is was Makarios simply proposing that TC talk about ammedments or were his 'proposals' part of a startegy to force such changes on the TC community. It seems clear to me from the large amount of evidence available that his intention was to force the acceptance of the changes to the consistution. That such acceptance became a pre contidtion of any return of TC to government is just one such piece of 'eveidence'."

Obviously it was very difficult for the TC's to trust Makarios and that I can understand: a Greek Orthodox Priest who led the campaign for uniting Cyprus to Greece. Personally I have always maintained the view that the last thing Cyprus needed after Independence was Makarios as the President and Kucuk (former "Volcan" leader) as the Vice President. On the other hand, who could have replaced them in those days and under those circumstances?

"I am sorry Imust appologise but I will have to leave my reply to your here for the moment. I will try and come back and reply to the rest in due course."

No need to apologize, erolz. We all have an off line life as well (and also a living to make). Have a great week

O.

P.S: My apologies for making this post difficult to read but for some reason I could not use the quote button.

O.

[erolz]

reply part2

Let us say that you are correct and that Papadopoulos denies on purpose that there were TC's who died in Cyprus in 63-64.

That would seem to be the case from where I am sitting. If it was a mistake or a misquote then why not say so?

Where else did he repeat the same claim?

Maybe he thought he could 'get away' with the claim there and that it would not be seen around the world via websites? I doubt he has numch idea of how much the internet has changed the way 'media' now works (if the UKs politicians are anything to go by).

Since he has been around forever, it is logical to assume that it is not the first time he talked about this subject.

No it is not the first time he has talked about this subject. I do not know why he made such a claim. All I do know is that he is reported to have made it, and has not issued any denial of it. Maybe he thinks he can say things in one place and to one audience that he can not say in another or to another (without challenge)?

Has he ever been questioned about the validity of his claims?

I don't know - if he has I have not seen such. If you give me his email address I will do it personaly and report back his 'explaination'.

If yes then when and what did he answer? If no then why wasn’t he questioned?

Maybe he was questioned and refused to give an answer? Maybe he was not questioned at all? If so I do not know why? If I were to meet him I would certainly question this statement of his. If I were a journalist I would think it necessaryu and valid to do so. I do not know wht this has not happened?

If Papadopoulos has never repeated before this claim about no TC's dying in 63-64, is there even a 1% chance that he messed up the dates during that interview? Surely Papadopoulos is not a charismatic or visionary politician, but I find it hard to believe that he is THAT stupid to claim something that cannot withstand the weight of historic events.

There is a chance that it was a msitake on his part, there is a chance that it was a misquote by the reporter. If this were the case however on such a sensative issue as this I would expect that some sort of clarification would be made by him or his office. I have not seen such. I can find no easy explainations for why he made this claim, at the time he did and in the place he did. However this does not mean that I therefore accept that he did not make this claim or mean to make it.

So erolz, show me a serious and systematic attempt by anyone (including Papadopoulos) that aims in supporting such a false claim and then I can reconsider what you are claiming here.

What I said was that such claims are propaganda. I did not say there was a systematic attempt to deny ANY murders or killing of GC by TC. I do believe that both sides have been waging a propaganda war aginst each other for as long as there has been two sides. As I recall (and it is hard to remeber this far back) the point I was making was that just because the situation was not totaly black and white (in 63-67) and just because there were undoubtedly 'evil' acts committed by TC it does not mean that saying the Cyprus problem is all down to TC being theives and greedy is propaganda - promoted by your statement "Maybe it is not all "propaganda" after all. "

If anything there are numerous books, articles and studies that were written by GC's and where there are detailed accounts about the suffering of both GC's and TC's in 1963 and 1964. The only reason I write the above is because in my opinion you are trying to construct an argument point on some "denial policy" of the GC's that does not even exist in the first place.

Piratis' consistent claim that the cyprus problem (and its continuation today) is all down to TC being theives and not wanting to return that which they stole (because they are greedy theives) is not a 'denial policy' from a GC? It certainly seems so to me and it also seems to exist. I think that both sides 'offical' versions of history are little more than propaganda.

I agree that overall the TC community suffered a lot more compared to what the GC community as a whole did during this period (63-74). What I cannot agree with is that all that happened was the sole responsibility of the GC's or even the result of some GC "Genocide" policy as it is often propagandised in this forum.

Genocide - as in the killing of all TC, I would agree with you (though some extremists DID propose such a 'solution'). As to a policy of 'politcal ethnic cleansing' (ie the removal of TC ability to block the will of the GC popualtion in Cyprus) then I do think there was a 'policy' of such on the part of the GC leadership of the time. I also think they did not exclude the use of illegal violence in achieveing this.
To be clear I have never said it was the sole responsibility of the GC. I just cannot accept that it was a matter of 'equal' responsibility.

What I completely disagree with is that Turkey and the TC leadership had nothing at all to do with the turn of events. Abandoning the RoC, withdrawing into the enclaves and locking up thousands of TC's in them, was a stage in Turkey's overall partition policy in Cyprus and not a spontaneous reaction to a GC attack. As I wrote before the GC's had a lot to lose from the concentration of the TC's in these open prisons that Turkey operated in Cypus, again for her own reasons. And eventually they did lose.

I have never said that they had nothing to do with what happened in 63-67 (and till 74 to a degree). I still have problesm with this approach of 'let's just say it was equal blame on both sides'.

By saying that there was a "need" for violence on the part o the GC's before 1967, you are once again claiming that only they bear the responsibility for the 1963-64 crisis and this does not reflect the truth.

No it does not (make the claim that GC were the sole party with any responsibility). What does not reflect the truth is saying that TC left government and went to live in enclaves to achieve eventual partition of the island - without mentioning anything about GC, about GC violence against TC, about the realtive scale of that violence, about the realtive power and strnght of the tow communites, about the Akritas plan, about ENOSIS and any othe number of relevant things to understanding what occured then.


(sorry a bit rushed - I still got to reply to your reply to my 'part 1 reply'!)

[erolz]

The feeling of injustice between GC's because of the 1960 agreements was a real one and it is for this reason that they sought constitutional changes.

Actually I also think they had grounds to want some constitutional changes. However I also think that they wanted to much change (the removal of any level of political equality between the two communites) and that they beleived this was their 'right' as a numerical majority (and despite any previous agreements made) and that if they could not achieve this by 'fair' means they were justifed in using 'foul' means. That for me is the problem. Not that they wanted changes, but that they believed they had (a god given?) right to them and the means they chose to use to try and secure them.

I do not see it like this. Suppose that if we have 2 groups of people: one consists of 80 and the other one of 20. It only takes 2 idiots (one from each group) to start a fight and drag everyone in it. It is my view that in that case the blame with respect to who started the fight belongs to both equally and not 80-20%.

Well firstly I would question in your analogy if it was just '1' idiot from each group and not 4 from the larger group vs 1 from the smaller (ie equal numbers of idiots from each group relative to size of the group). In which case taking the groups as groups you can argue that the larger group is four times more responsible because there were 4 idiots from this group. Even if you take your analogy with an acceptance of 1 idiot from each group, I would say that each group bears part of the blame for not stopping their idiot form fighting, in their name. Again then the larger group can be argued to be more to blame because there were more of them that should have stopped their idiot than the smaller group. However I need to be clear that this is not my view. In my view it is sensible to tlak about equal reponsibility of the two groups (even though their sizes are different). To me this is the same concept of equality political rights of two groups of different sizes. As indivduals the 'unit' of rights (and responsibilites) is the indivdual. As groups / peoples the 'unit' is the group / peoples. This is true for blame as well as for rights (of peoples) in my mind.

Remember what I wrote earlier about the lack of trust between the GC and the TC's? The GC's insisted that the only way they could make the RoC a workable one was through Constitutional amendments. The TC's on the other hand, saw this as a GC attempt to take their rights away. I am once again repeating myself but had the GC and TC sides been sincere with one another about all this then perhaps we would have never gone through all the mess we did.

I think the TC side sincerely expressed it's view that the ammendments were designed to change fundamentaly the basis of the consitution and to reduce the TC numerical minroty ot a poltical one in Cyprus. I do not think the GC sincerely expressed their desire to reduce the TC community to ntohing more that a poltical minority in Cyprus. I think they specificaly hid their true motives as a matter of 'strategy' (and as laid out clearly in the Akritas plan).

Perhaps I am still missing your point, but I do not think that the loss of a loved one can ever be adequately compensated with material goods.

No a loss of a loved one can not be adequately compensated with money. However some kind of monetary compenasation would be at least an attempt to offer some compensation but more importantly it would offer 'recognition' of the persons loss. Or do you think because you can not return a loved one, that no compenasation is due.

Properties are easy to deal with: they can be returned, repaired, rebuilt or compensated for. Human life is irreplaceable. If you have something to suggest on this one then I would be more than interested to read.

Which is pretty much my point (area of sensitivity). It feels to me because one is easy we only talk of the easy one and because the other is difficult we simply forget it, which does not feel very fair. I suggest that if the ECHR thinks it can place a monetary value on how much Lozidou should get in compensation for not being able to use her property for 30 years then it should also be able to place a monetary value on how much my aunt should get for not having her husband or her children their father for 40 years - and it should be considerably greater than what it deems 'fair' for the loss of use of property. Courts do assign a monetary value to human lives in all sorts of cases.

I never said or believed that the TC's should have done nothing - this would be like taking them for idiots and that is insulting. All I said is that the TC's (and the GC's) should have talked more to resolve their problems without using guns.

This I totaly agree with - though I guess we still differ on who was 'most' ready to use guns.

While I understand where the above comes from, what I am trying to explain is that any elements or ideas that promoted partition (such as the TC enclaves) these caused justified nervousness to the GC's. To put it simply erolz, for us GC’s Taxim has always been what Enosis is to you.

I guess for me I do not see an 'equalness' in these two concepts (taksim and enosis). Enosis was specificaly a desire to untie the whole island with Greece - it absolutely and totaly rejected the idea of any seperation of Cyprus and thus was a desire for GC/Greek control over all of Cyprus (and thus all it's people). Taksim was a desire to have part of Cyprus exclusive to and under control of TC (or Turkey if you prefer). To me there is a difference there, though I guess I understand how you may refuse that there is. One is a desire for total control (inculding control of the other group) and the other is a desire for partial control (and no control over the other group).

What I am trying to understand is are how far do you see your self-determination rights go and if these can violate my basic human rights, like for example the right to exist in my own homeland?

I have tried to make my views on this issue clear elswhere in the past. Basicaly the first point for me is an acceptance that the TC are a people within the spirit of the human rights declarations on the rights of peoples and in the letter as well. In return I accept that in a senario where two peoples exist in a single geographical area, neither side can realisitcaly expect to have full and unrestricted rights as peoples. The fact is that the rights of one group can clash with the rights of the other (such as they did with say ENOSIS or Taksim). For me the 'unit' of the rights of peoples is the group and irrespective of the groups size (provided they meet reasonable criterion of a 'people' - which is not clearly defined in the human rights charters but which there is much 'expert opinion' on) - just as with indidvduals the unit is the indivdual and bigger, fatter or taller indivduals do not have more rights than smaller ones.
Having said this I do not insist that the TC people have total equality on all issues and at every level. My personal view - as best I have been able to explain it, is that there should be straight equality of communites (on the democratic principal of one community one vote) on any decsion that materialy affects one community differently to the other and straight equality of indivduals (on democratic principal of one person one vote) on any issue that affects both communites the same way. I have in the past given examples of these two types of decsions.

Personally I have always maintained the view that the last thing Cyprus needed after Independence was Makarios as the President and Kucuk (former "Volcan" leader) as the Vice President.

Actually I know a lot more about Makarios than I do Kucuk but I certainly agree with you re Makarios (and probably would re Kucuk if I knew as much about him)

No need to apologize, erolz. We all have an off line life as well (and also a living to make). Have a great week

I am going to have to appologise again. I am going to the UK on thursady and have much to prepare before I go. I wil not be very active until I return in early Feb. I am just saying this so that no one thinks I have just 'disapeared'.

[insan]

Insan
I am not sure about what you mean when you often refer to the "ruling Hellen(ic) elite". Can you please clarify?

Hi Othellos,

If you read it as "ruling Hellen(ic) elite" that I've never written it as you suggested; I use the phrase in several forums which is not hard to understand what it means:

Hellen's ruling elite: All Greek descendant people who are in position to rule the Greek descendant people, either directly(majority of parliament) or indirectly(pressure groups, self-interest groups, lobbyists, factions). I hope I could have clarified it, Othellos.

A question: did leftists participate in the TMT? Did they assume any leading roles or were they kept in the lower ranks?

Of course they did. In conflict years from the formation of TMT until late 60's all adult TC males were a part of TMT. Most of the TC leftists didn't dare to put their divergences forward because high ranked leaders of TMT were very merciless against the ones who didn't obbey their rules. There were just a few brave leftists such as Kavazoglu and Gurkan and as it is known, they were assassinated by TMT. Nevertheless at the individual level, leftists of TMT which were not organized within the TMT; played a very imporatnt role to tranquillize the merciless rightist/nationalist anger against so many innocent GCs.

After Akel abandoned the Enosis idea in mid-60s and started to struggle against Enosists and this followed by Makarios' public declaration which he stated Enosis was no longer viable; high ranked TMT leaders loosen the strings of leftists. In 1970 the leftist TCs organised and formed CTP(The first and only communist party of TCs). An equivelent of AKEL.

My understanding is that the Turkish side never really abandoned the idea of partition. One reason for this was that they never trusted the GC side enough.

Was there enough expression of confidence from either GC side or rest of the Hellen's ruling elite sides to any of the Turkish sides(Left wing or right wing)? In 1966 GC left abandoned the Enosis idea because of the political crisis, fascist movements in Greece, which followed by a coup and Junta came into power. In 1967, Makarios abandoned the Enosis idea because of the Junta came into power in Greece and fear of a Turkish intervention. And perhaps US pressure...

What about the others which were making and leading the plans, organizing the pro-Enosis mass media for Enosis propaganda? What about the cadres behind the scenes? What about the priests in sacred houses? What about the pro-Enosis government wing of RoC? They have never abandoned the idea of Enosis even up to today. The EU accession of RoC is a part of revised Akritas Plan, imo. By becoming a full member of EU, Cyprus politically was integrated with Greece and now it's time for achieving the second step: "majority rule"; i.e Hellen dominated Cyprus.

Another important reason was Turkey's anachronistic obsession about its "security" and the role of Cyprus in all this. It is also my opinion that to this date both of the above views are being maintained by the Turkish side and they do affect any kind of discussion / solution proposal on Cyprus.

It doesn't seem to me an anachronistic obsession about her security. If you look from a retrospective view point, there are so many visible threats around her which justify their stance regarding the issues of her security. Do a google search and see how many maps have been made and how she divided and shared on schemes by some of its hidden(Actually known) enemies. Naturally, the threats around her do affect any kind of discussion / solution proposal on Cyprus. For instance, if Turkey has been an EU member at the time when Greece became a full member of EU, things would be much different. But I don't think Christian Democrat coaliation of EU would ever let Turkey become a full member of EU.

While I do recognize the grave situation in which thousands of TC's had come between 1963-67, I do not accept that the GC’s bear the exclusive responsibility, despite their own mistakes. When it comes to what the TCs underwent before 1974 and especially between 1963 and 1967, I believe that the TC leadership and especially Turkey had a lot to do with it as well.

Of course GCs as a community do not bear the exclusive responsibility. To put the exclusive part of the responsibility on any of the relevant parties/ideological groups, depends on your view point. For example, I believe that, imposing "majority rule" on TCs and in order to make TCs to accept majority rule(Being an ineffective minority) and in order to achive their goal; making a plan which contains use of violence methods, inhumane oppressions, implications and traps to create international impressions against TCs in favour of their aims; make me think that the exclusive part of responsibility belongs to far right wing of Hellen's ruling elite. Whom I implying with the definition of "far right wing of Hellen's ruling elite: Pro-Enosists, ultra-nationalists and fascists.

I will try as a GC to give you my own perspective on Enosis starting from the time when Britain came to Cyprus. Back in 1915 the British offered Cyprus to Greece in exchange of her participation to WW I on the side of the allies. And during WW II, the British slogan while recruiting GC's in Cyprus was "for Freedom and Greece" (I do not know what slogan they used for the TC's). In 1950 Enosis was viewed by the GC's as the only way to get rid of Colonial rule at a time when other people around the world were revolting one after the other and this should come as no surprise to anyone. The Church assumed the role it did in the 1950 referendum and onward because historically they were the sole and undisputed leaders of the GC community. How do you think that Makarios came about?

Please don't forget that the Enosis wasn't the only issue which caused two communities to get into strife. There was one more major issue which I consider it as the core point of the Cyprus problem; "majority rule". Even If Hellen's ruling elite have never made an attempt for Enosis but solely insisted on "majority rule"; TCs would react with the same way as they did in the past.

I believe that at first Independence was not welcomed by many GC's who aspired Enosis, just as it was not welcomed by many TC's who aspired for the island's partition. But as I wrote: "aspirations for Union with Greece started fading away". Naturally this did not happen overnight, it did take some time and happened for a number of reasons, including the rapid economic development that GC's experienced. Despite the feelings of disappointment, "a public opinion poll as early as 1965, most Greek Cypriots voted for independence as a preferable political framework to enosis. By the time of the 1970 elections, the enosists failed to capture a single seat."

Ok. You didn't specify a date in your previous post you said "after the independence of Cyprus...". Although I don't approve intimidate actions in any way, I think the threat of Turkish military intervention also played a big role of changing the public opinion in GC community. I assume, most of the GCs who voted against Enosis should be AKELites. In 1970, there were some equivelent developments in TC side too. I refered above.

("Cyprus: origins of the present crisis – 1950s to 1970s", p.39). I am aware of certain speeches that were made by Makarios and where he still talked about Enosis - a clumsy thing to do, even if there were also other statements that were also made by him at different times and in which he declared Enosis as unviable. Was Makarios seeking improvements in the 1960 agreements in favour of the GC's, or was he trying to please his audience, especially at a time when he was facing internal problems because of EOKA B, or was he doing a bit of both?

I believe that after 1967, because of the reasons I mentioned above; he was seeking improvements in the 1960 agreements in a perspective which he was believeing would be the best possible under the circumstances of 1967-74. One of the aim of Makarios was to keep the unitary state as a whole. That's why he was against seperate municipalities. The second major issue was "majority rule" which was something totally made TCs to revolt. The impressions I've had from what I read so far is that; Makarios was not under influence of EOKA-B, even he boldly defied to their threats. If in the early 70's, his audiences have completely abandoned the Enosis idea but not abandoned the "majority rule" idea, this means in the early 70s Makarios genuinely seeking a solution in frame of his audiences expectations. I still wonder what do majority of GCs think about the political status of TC community. I'm sure Papadopulos does not support "political equality of two communities". I'm not sure about Klerides and Anastasiades. A part of Akel supports "political equality of two communities". And also, I'm sure the split part of Desy does not support...

I have already mentioned one such example in which TC's carried out a major and unprovoked attack against GC civilians in Paphos on 7/3/64. The attack took place in the town's market and while people were shopping. 7 GC's were killed, 35 were injured and around 200 hostages were taken. There were other similar incidents elsewhere in Cyprus. And of course there were (provoked and unprovoked) attacks by GC's on TC's . Following the above described Turkish attack in Paphos there was a retaliatory attack by GC's and TC hostages were also taken. While one may feel "tempted" to question the term "unprovoked" considering what the climate was throughout the island in those days, the unacceptable fact that civilians from both sides were deliberately targeted made things only worse.

"Between January and August 1964 much of the violence that took place was of a sporadic nature. The size of Cyprus, with its customs and strong traditions, the news of an incident in one village would spread fear and apprehension to neighbouring villages. The most innocuous incident was capable of sparking off confrontation in this highly charged atmosphere. Two examples serve to illustrate this point. The first occurred in Ayios Sozomenos, an ethnically mixed village in the district of Nicosia. On 6 February 1964 the Greeks were attacked and two were killed. Retaliation followed by the Greeks, and seven Turks were killed in further clashes, as well as a further nine Greeks.

The second incident was triggered in Paphos where a Turk was killed by a sniper. The Turks retaliated and a heated exchange followed. Six Greeks and a Turk were killed. Further violence flared on the nights of 8/9 March when 14 Turks and 11 Greeks were killed. These incidents demonstrate that in an atmosphere as highly charged as that of Cyprus in 1964, shootings were triggered by the slightest prompting and could quickly escalate.

Most incidents were local and retaliatory in nature, usually a specific response to a particular incident. This is, for example, illustrated by the hostage exchange that took place in March 1964. Following numerous kidnappings and hostage taking, an exchange was organised on 7 March. About 225 Turkish hostages had been seized by Greek paramilitaries, of which around 175 had never returned, while about 41 Greeks remained missing. The exchange was designed to reduce tension, but in fact it had the opposite effect. Within 24 hours of the exchange a number of shooting incidents occurred throughout Cyprus. Again, revenge appears to have been the main motivating factor.

In Ktima, Turkish Cypriots took as hostages hundreds of Greek Cypriots who were shopping in the local market. The Turkish Cypriots claimed that their action was prompted by the reports of the Turkish Cypriot hostages who had gone missing. In total, 14 Turks and 11 Greeks lost their lives in Ktima."

Taken from: http://www.greece.org/cyprus/Takism2.htm

I understand that this was a main fear of the TC's. As I already wrote in another post, unfortunately Makarios and Kucuk failed to have an open and honest discussion about what was going on in Cyprus a the time. They could have discussed everything, including majority rule, "traditional" Greek-Turkish relations etc and avert the crisis.

I agree with you that both Makarios and Kuchuk failed to have an open and honest discussion about what was going on in Cyprus a the time.

I do not think that there was much that the Cypriot Government could do to prevent this. If you were in their shoes, what would you have done?

I would put my concerns about the demographics of the Cyprus and the properties of GCs then of course ask Denktash for strong written assurances to secure these. One of the articles of High Level Agreements of 1979 should be based upon Demographics of Cyprus and properties belong to GCs.

You???? Tired of writing? I thought I would never see this re

Hehehehe. I feel a big pain on right side of my shoulder at the moment. But diasscussing with you in this climate stimulate me to continue to write

Thank you for the above link, Insan. That is an interesting article to read and I believe that to a great extend it does provide a fair description of the situation in Cyprus at that time. I also believe that it confirms several of the points that I have already made. The very last paragraph for example confirms my point about the idea of "Enosis" fading away. Quoting from the Z. Stavrinides article: "An important element in the picture is that the Greek population at large gradually abandoned their traditional zeal for enosis." I cannot understand why you consider what I say as "inconsistent".

Yes, it confirms several of your points. You said that "After the independence...", if you said that after the mid 60s, I too would confirm your point.



Thanks Othellos, it was a very good discussion in a very good spirit.

[insan]

I should add a few more lines about CTP(Republican Turkish Party). Which republic they attributed with its name, do you think? TRNC? USSR or ROC?


How did those TCs dare to form CTP, under the circumstances of late 60's and early 70s, if as you claimed they were totally under strict control of TMT and Turkey?

[Alexandros Lordos]

If only our political leaders would discuss as thoroughly as you two guys ...

[Alexandros Lordos]

I should add a few more lines about CTP(Republican Peoples Party). Which republic they attributed with its name, do you think? TRNC? USSR or ROC?


How did those TCs dare to form CTP, under the circumstances of late 60's and early 70s, if as you supposed they were under strict control of TMT and Turkey?

Insan, I wasn't aware that CTP was formed so early on ...

I am wondering, on what sort of political platform was CTP formed? What did it aspire to? And in what way did its aspirations differ from TMT?

I think these are crucial questions, because I suspect that the TC political culture has developed along two parallel threads over the last 30-40 years: On the one hand, the TMT legacy leading to Denktash and the struggle for partition, and on the other hand the CTP legacy leading to Talat and the struggle for ... what? This is my question.