Cyprus-Forum.com

[insan]

Makarios:

One of our most famous leader, Makarios. No memoirs he left behind... What I know about him:

Makarios:

He was a self-seeker, so-called communist and so-called nationalist. Plenty of his actions and mistakes can be considered as the core of the conflict.

Dr. Kuchuk:

He was an ignorant, so-called nationalist. He has no positive role regarding Cyprus problem. He was the first TC leader who publicly declared that TCs are a minority just like Maronites, Latins and Armenians... Though soon after Turkey shouted at him "YOU BLOCKHEAD! WHAT THE HELL YOU THINK, YOU DID?"; he certainly founded National Unity Party, ignorantly begun to sing "Cyprus is Turkish" song and taught this utterly ignorant song to some ignorant so-called nationalist TCs who were naive enough to believe that "Cyprus is Turkish". Then they realized that it was unrealistic and invented the "TAKSIM" cause which was yet again another dream impossible...

Grivas:

He was a bloodthirsty, anti-communist, so-called nationalist... After he finished his butchering job in Greece with the help of his monarcho-fascist state sponsored paramilitary organisation "X"; in early 50s arrived to Cyprus to do the same job against invaders of Hellen land(British and Turkish colonialists) and communists... He butchered thousands of Brits, communists and TCs with the help of his "sponsors and paramilitary organisations in between the years 1955-74. He has a great role of turning the Cyprus problem into a bloodthirsty armed "struggle". He is the inventor of Turco-Greco vendetta in Cyprus.


Denktash:

Successor of Kuchuk... Founder of so-called nationalist, self-seeker TMT. Though he is a self-seeker, so-called nationalist too... The man who fueled the inter-communal strife in the periods 1963-71 and 71-74 by giving retaliation orders to TMT. They thought retaliation was defense... TMT caused more and more innocents deaths with their ignorant retaliations... There were 3 guarantor powers and their forces in the Island in order to provide protection to Cypriots but nebertheless, there were also illegal paramilitary organisations under sponsorship of the same guarantor powers, seemingly to protect their nations interests... Can you imagine the tradgi-comic situation?

"Great" TC leader, "hero" Denktash managed to establish a exploitation organization in 1983 with the help of self-seeker so-called Turkish nationalists and TC Nationalists. They partisantly oppressed and exploited the innocent ordinary TCs and settlers, in order to keep themselves in power and grab all they can..

What's your opinions about those destroyers of Cyprus? Can someone tell us about the others?

Klerides, Kyprianou, Vasiliou and Papadopulous?

[Bananiot]

Just a question first; are you considering Klerides and Vasiliou to be in the same club as the others? Are you saying (insinuating) that they are destroyers too?

I will give my views later, I am now off to "MOYRA" for a meal with the family. I wish I could invide you there for some person to person talk.

[Piratis]

"Dystroyers" is something quite heave to say for all those.

You can not put the elleted presidents in the same group with Grivas and Denctash.

The ellected presidents have done mistakes, but who doesn't? We can jusge them, biut calling them "destroyers" is too much.

are you considering Klerides and Vasiliou to be in the same club as the others?

Those two are much closer to Grivas than the rest of the presidents.

[insan]

Just a question first; are you considering Klerides and Vasiliou to be in the same club as the others? Are you saying (insinuating) that they are destroyers too?

I don't know much about them... What I know about G Klerides is the accusations made by AKEL to his foundation DESI as "The party with a sinful past", "Responsibles of the 1962s", "Defenders of the democrasy killers", "so-called solution supporters", "The party which only have been able to build so many silly EOKA monuments in order to justify their wrong actions and erase the guilt of their sinful past..." etc...

How can I ineterpret these accusations... Just political manouvres of AKEL?

Denktash refers from Vasiliou as the best GC leader of all... I hear that quite a lot of GCs accusing him of selling Cyprus to foreigners... Was he misunderstood?

Kyprianou as a president from Makarios tradition is said that not any better than Makarios... Even worse... Just an obsessional man...


And Papadopulos seems to me just the twin of Kyprianou, perhaps a bit better...

I don't know much about them... expecting some GC left wingers and right wingers to tell me more about them...

"Dystroyers" is something quite heave to say for all those.

I could express my thoughts at an academic level without using that kind of words but in the end when one read all about them might come to a conclusion that they are the destroyers of Cyprus...

I will give my views later, I am now off to "MOYRA" for a meal with the family. I wish I could invide you there for some person to person talk.

Good appetites! Perhaps some day?

I reccomend you Sabor if you like Spanish and Italian cousine in a historical lovely enviroment... It is at just behind the St. Sophia Cathedral in Nicosia, walled city...

[michalis5354]

Very good analysis indeed! Some intentionally some other unintentionally . All have contributed in one way or the other on the Cyprus issue.

Politicians needs to have wisdom to forsee risks and unite the communities somthing that the above did not have.

The two exception on the above list are Clerides and Vasiliou. The fact that Denktash also referes to Vasiliou as one of the Best GC leader is something that I also agree with. Vasiliou was a new leader never involved with politics in 1960s. And he never encouraged nationalism . I think on those days got the trust of the TC societyunlike the rest of the above GC list who I put them in the same scale : and therefore I never trusted.

I don't know much about them... What I know about G Klerides is the accusations made by AKEL to his foundation DESI as "The party with a sinful past", "Responsibles of the 1962s", "Defenders of the democrasy killers", "so-called solution supporters", "The party which only have been able to build so many silly EOKA monuments in order to justify their wrong actions and erase the guilt of their sinful past..." etc...

These are just accusations coming from someone with a heavy record on coruption mismanagement and Old fashioned policies. Having known Clerides after the 1974 he is an honest man and his actions do not match his accusations . Just make a search to see how many TCs trust Clerides and how many Papapdopoulos! I will like to know.

Clerides and Vasiliou share similar views regarding Cyprus issue and they are these who consistently worked hard for Cyprus to join the EU. And they have recently supported the UN plan. Unlike the rest who showed a rejectionist attitude and STILL today and they have not told their planned strategy.

About Kucuk I rarely had enough information to read about him so I assume you know more .

[Piratis]

What I know about G Klerides is the accusations made by AKEL to his foundation DESI as "The party with a sinful past", "Responsibles of the 1962s", "Defenders of the democrasy killers", "so-called solution supporters", "The party which only have been able to build so many silly EOKA monuments in order to justify their wrong actions and erase the guilt of their sinful past..." etc...

Michalis, what of the above is not true abut Klerides? Everything is.

In the case of Vasiliou it depends from the point of view you see things.
He initiated the "good boy" policy that Kleredes later followed.
I believe this policy was totally wrong, because its aim was to make us seem like the "good boys" to the foreigners, and make us likable. They would accept almost anything that the foreigners proposed, just to receive their bravos. On some occasions they would even accept things that were obviously way beyond what GC could accept and they just counted on Denctash to reject them.

Some people (like Bananiot) say that with Papadopoulos we are now isolated. So what? What we gained with Kleredis - Vassiliou that they were always likable by accepting almost everything the foreigners wanted?

The question is: Did Vasiliou and Kleredis honestly believed that the Greek Cypriots would accept the things they accepted in the negotiating table? Or they knew all along that what they did was against the interests of GC and they just did it so they would be likable among the high-class of Europe and be invited in their high-class dinners? (making some high-class connections would be very good for Vasiliou businesses)

[Bananiot]

Thanks Insan, I'll try your suggestion but you do understand that most important is not the food but socialising. Last night I met an "Africa" reprorter and a close friend to Levent, I forget his name now, but we had a short discussion on Mehmet Ali. He told me that he was a party member and explained how he feels terribly let down by Talat. I said to him that I found one of Levent's recent articles on Talat very objectable but at the end he insisted practically that there is no difference between Talat and Denktash. I found this very difficult to accept.

Regarding Klerides and Vasiliou now, they are both pragmatic politicians and this of course wins them many enemies because unlike the populists they do not say "nice" things all the time but dish out the truth, which of course most times is bitter. In Greek politics, pragmatic politicians, like Venizelos and some others, have been scorned immensely by those that spread fairy tails and like to keep the people asleep. Flying high in the clouds does not win you many political battles in an immensely complicated international environment. Vasiliou and Klerides backed by another pragmatic politician, Simitis of Greece, steered Cyprus into the EU, despite the great obstacles. I do not think anyone else in Cyprus could have achieved such a fete.

Klerides and Vasiliou could have solved the Cyprus issue had AKEL not decided to back a well known chauvinist who has rejected ALL proposed solutions to our problem since 1960. They would have negotiated a much better deal that the Cypriot people could not reject.

Klerides, just to go back to his earlier career, was highly thought of by AKEL, he was even called a "good captain" of the ship. For decades AKEL and Klerides had similar ideas on the solution of the issue and today, the vast majority of the AKEL leadership completely sides with Klerides's point of view. No doubt, there is a leadership core, led by Katsourides (I met many TC who remember his father - Katsouras, who was the KGB of AKEL) who abide by the nationalist point of view. They have sided with the rejectionist argument which is objectable because they simply reject every peace effort without telling us what they want. In other words it is a very unproductive argument that only contributes to the perpetuation of the stalemate and the eventual partition of Cyprus.

We also have a paradox here. AKEL agreed with Klerides on the Cyprus issue but for ideological reasons did not want to appear to be too close to a party (DISI) which included many ex EOKA B members. Klerides was not pro EOKA B but his party included many EOKA B members and even members of the Sampson government in its high echelons. This was and still is a highly divisive issue and one that has been absolutely used by both big parties, AKEL and DISI, to fanatise their followers and maintain bipolarity in party politics. This gave huge success to both parties, that kept growing and growing.

Kyprianou, as President, was wily and always looked for a bigger chank of the electorate pie. He was a bad president as far as the Cyprus issue was concerned, but he managed to manipulate the AKEL/DISI paradox in a clever way. He portrait AKEL as a party with no real difference with DISI, as a party that was willing to do business with the unrependent coupists of DISI and in 1985 his party DIKO polled a massive 27% at hte elections and came in 2nd after DISI. This was a great shock for AKEL, which slowly but steadily rejected its pragmatic image and moved to adopt a more populist face.

Ever since then AKEL has been very conscious of losing voters and has a fixation that every time it merely appears to be agreeing with DISI on any issue, this will lose them votes. In other words, party before country.

Another interesting point that needs to be made is this; in 1992, AKEL defeated Kyprianou in the elections with a charismatic technocrat that no body heard of before, named George Vasiliou. AKEL was in fact saved by Vasiliou and more gratitude should be given to this man by AKEL. During Vasiliou's reign, DIKO dropped to a mere 13%, but the wily Kyprianou found a way to take his revenge, by siding with Klerides who, in 1992 for the first time in his life, shed his pragmatic self to lure the nationalist and sure enough, he managed to beat Vasiliou into 2nd place by a handful of votes. Six months later Klerides resumed his pragmatic self, to the horror of Kyprianou who walked out of government and joint the opposition.

Now, it was the turn of AKEL to shed the pragmatic approach. By 2003 AKEL was the champion of the rejectionists and siding with Papadopoulos who had succeded the late Kyprianou, performed the miracle in the elections and sent Klerides home for good.

This is Cyprus my friends. Power and the means to exercise it is the only thing that matters. It is the only country in Europe where power does not wear out a party but makes it stronger.

I suggest that the Cyprus issue has fallen victim to party politics.

[Piratis]

Bananiot, if we wanted what you call "pragmatic" (to partition Cyprus) we didn't need neither Vassiliou, nor Kleredes. We could just give part of our country to the Turks and that would be the end of the story.

We need leaders that will at least try to secure our interests, and not ones that will just take whatever is given to them and declare that anything beyond that is not pragmatic. We elected them and pay them to work for us and our interests, we didn't put them there to just deliver to us whatever the Americans give to them.

Parties get their power from the people. This is what democracy is all about. The great majority of people reject the Annan plan. If most of the leadership accepted it, this would be an anomaly in democracy (leaders would not represent the people) and this would be fixed in the next elections.

[michalis5354]

Michalis, what of the above is not true abut Klerides? Everything is.

What I can not understand is Although AKEL claims all these against DISY Party and especially blame Clerides for all these serious issues does NOTHING to prove these allegations and keep blaiming Clerides without any serious evidences and keep all these outstanding. I found all these really Childish and not hard to get convinced without producing real convincing evidences. I mean Why AKEL does not name the people ONE BY ONE . Until today I keep hearing all these accusations which of course are very serious but we do not know the people behind. They argue that DYSI gave shelter to these people! Who are these people? Name them one by one! And If such serious issues are not dealt with clarity how do you expect for anyone to believe AKEL . Maybe are political manouvres of AKEL!! If AKEL does not provide sufficient evidenses for such serious issues AKEL is also responsible for that dont you think?

In the case of Vasiliou it depends from the point of view you see things.
He initiated the "good boy" policy that Kleredes later followed.
I believe this policy was totally wrong, because its aim was to make us seem like the "good boys" to the foreigners, and make us likable. They would accept almost anything that the foreigners proposed, just to receive their bravos. On some occasions they would even accept things that were obviously way beyond what GC could accept and they just counted on Denctash to reject them.

Some people (like Bananiot) say that with Papadopoulos we are now isolated. So what? What we gained with Kleredis - Vassiliou that they were always likable by accepting almost everything the foreigners wanted?

Not my friend Vasiliou was not a good boy . Just he knew what was feasible and what was not! He never flied . There are aggreement that we have signed and we are required to endorsed all these aggreements.

The question is: Did Vasiliou and Kleredis honestly believed that the Greek Cypriots would accept the things they accepted in the negotiating table? Or they knew all along that what they did was against the interests of GC and they just did it so they would be likable among the high-class of Europe and be invited in their high-class dinners? (making some high-class connections would be very good for Vasiliou businesses)

Nothing they have done was against the interest of GCs nor TCs. And they have not accepted things , just negotiating with UN . Was membership to EU against the interest of GCS and TCS? None of them needed to be likable among high -class europe. It is better to tell the public the real truth than manipulating the public , giving unachievable promises to get the votes and support of the local people.

[Bananiot]

Piratis thinks that to be a pragmatic politicial means selling your country. I think he has no idea of the notion but a quick journey through the history of most nations will reveal the fact that the destroyers are the populist politicians who are also likely to destroy on a financial level too.