Cyprus-Forum.com

[Piratis]

Bananiot, once again you do what you know best: Discredit people that the majority of Cypriots support/supported.

Is this some kind of complex that you have? Or is it simply part of your strategy to blame everything on Greek Cypriots?

Cyprus was partitioned on April 24 and I pray I am wrong on this.

Oh, and on April 23rd it was united?
I really doubt you pray you are wrong, since you actually do whatever you can to make your predictions come true.

[insan]

Thanks a lot for the infos you have given my adelfe Mihalis... There are some sources which expound that in 1967 all embargos had been lifted upon TCs, negotiations started and no serious incidents or intercommunal strife taken place until Grivases secret return to Cyprus and formation of Eoka-B in 1971.

I think the bomb explosions, assassination attempts to Makarios etc. took place in 1971-1974 period.

Those sources expound that after a 4 years of intercommunal violance everything was going back to normal in 1967-71 period. Even most of the TCs who abandoned or obliged to abandon their houses returned back. Just a small number of TCs hadn't returned and kept living in enclaves.

You can r4ead the details at www.cyprus-conflict.net

At the same web site there's an interview which was made with Makarios... Here's some quotations from that interview which indicates that Sampsons intention wasn't good concerning TCs...


"Makarios: Every time we were on the point of reaching an agreement between Greek Cypriots and Turkish Cypriots, officials in Athens intervened by shouting about enosis. "We don't care about your local agreements, our goal is enosis." I remember one of these officials who came to me one day and said, "You must declare I enosis. Anyway it will take three or four days before the Turks can send troops to Cyprus. In the meantime the United States will intervene and keep them from invading the island. In a week enosis will be a fait accompli." Maybe they really believed that annexation to Greece was a viable alternative. Anyway, they expected me to take orders from Athens, they wanted e to obey like a puppet, and that's absolutely impossible with my temperament. I obey only myself."


This one seems to me that happened in 1967-74 period...



"Makarios: It took some time for me to realize that Ioannides had simply acted out of a lack of intelligence. And yet I knew him. In 1963 and 1964 he had been in Cyprus as an officer of the National Guard, and one fill day he came to see me, accompanied by Sampson, in order to Aexplain to me secretly a plan that would settle everything.@ He had bowed to me, he had kissed my hand most respectfully, then: "Beatitude, here's the plan. To attack the Turkish Cypriots suddenly, everywhere on the island. To eliminate them one and all. Stop." I was flabbergasted. I told him I couldn't agree with him, that I couldn't even conceive the idea of killing so many innocent people. He kissed my hand again and went away in a huff. I tell you, he's a criminal."




And this one seems that happened in 1964....





http://www.cyprus-conflict.net/makarios ... allaci.htm


Though US didn't intervene and neither Junta could help him much after the Coup D'etat.


The Sampson coup backed by Greek Junta seems to me just a stupid suicide attempt.

In my opinion they supposed US would favour and award them because of their anti-communist stance, overthrowing Makarios and they expected US would stop leftist Ecevits intervention, whose relations wasn't good with US in those years...


I don't think that it was backed by CIA.

US had aided them for their anti-communist actions... This is highly probable... but I don't think that Coup and Turkish intervention was an US sponsored plot for partition. If their aim had been partition, two seperate states should be recognized by US right after the events of 1974.


There's another fact which should be questioned... The second phase of the Turkish intervention/invasion...

On 23rd of July Sampson resigned and Klerides appointed as the new president of RoC. Could it be considered as constutional order restored while some 25.000 TCs were under retaliatory attack risk of some straying Eoka-B thugs and angry GCs... Moreover, Makarios had returned after a few months and Klerides resigned... Nevertheless, none of the Eoka-B members had been arrested. They kept threatining Makarios verbaly via their newspapers. They maintained EOKA-B organization until 1978 than declared that it was dissolved. Though in 1976 they all united under DESI...

Put yourself in TCs and Turkeys place and tell me what would you do under those circumstances...


If there weren't 25.000 TCs under those circumstances Turkey wouldn't be able to launch the second phase of the intervention/invasion and wouldn't be able to seize her power over %37 of the land. So why didn't they recede to %18 after the second phase of intervention/invasion? In 1975-77 period, Makarios and Denktash negotiated it, Makarios offered %20-25 for the area which would be under TC administration but Denktash insisted on %32.8.


After a long discussion the following text of guide-lines were agreed for the interlocutors:

"(1) We are seeking an independent, non-aligned bicommunal. Federal Republic.

(2) The territory under the administration of each community should be discussed in the light of economic viability, or productivity and land ownership.

(3) Questions of principle like freedom of movement, freedom of settlement and the right to property and other specific matters are open for discussion taking into consideration the fuundamental basis of a bicommunal federal system and certain practical difficulties, which may arise for the Turkish Cypriot community.

(4) The powers and functions of the Central Federal Government will be such as to safeguard the unity of the country having regard to the bicommunal character of the state.


http://www.cyprus-conflict.net/makarios ... ,%2077.htm


I wonder was it really hard to calculate what would be the percentage of territory under each communities administration with the above mentioned principle?

By taking into consideration the fuundamental basis of a bicommunal federal system and certain practical difficulties, which may arise for the Turkish Cypriot community; was it too hard to calculate how many refugees would return and how much the properties would be exchanged?


Apparantly, both communities leadership couldn't go even just step further from the point they were on in 1977.



........................................................


It is a fact that Dr Kuchuk, Denktash and TMT backed by Turkey exerted a great effort for partition in 50s and 1963-67 period but not in 1967-74 period. And even until 1983... Though it is obvious that coup served both TC rightists and Turkeys interests but it is hard to say that intervention/invasion was an excuse more than a reason... They caught the opportunity to convert the mixed unitary state into a bi-zonal, bi-communal federation...If Juntas and Sampson intentions were to call Turkey to negotiate partition, Sampson should had declared it between 15th of July and 20th of July. Even on 21st or 22nd of July. On the contrary, according to hellas.org invasion timeline http://www.hellas.org/cyprus/timeline.htm on 20th of July 1974 at 7.15 in the morning, the War Council was formed where union with Cyprus was raised as a method of stopping the Turkish invasion. That was not declared, but all agreed on the draft.


.................................

To the best of my knowledge there were no provocative actions of TMT in 1967-74 period. I remember that together with my parents we could easily go from Nicosia to Alaminos, Limassol and Mari. I witnessed no violance until July 1974. Though just a little I can remember from those years. I was just a 7 y.o boy in 1974. In March 1974 my uncle who was residing in Alaminos had got married and all of the invited GC neighbours were at the wedding with their little children. While the elders were dancing, eating, drinking, cahtting and dancing; we the children were playing games, although we couldn't understand each others language.


Do you know what interesting is? This is the first time that I asked to an elder Cypriot what was the situations in 1967-71 and 71-74 period. I should find some Cypriots who are in their 50s or 60 to get more information regarding those periods... Though my father and uncles are old enough to remeber those years but all of them were studying in Turkey in 1967-71-73 periods. And now I'm in Istanbul and have a little chance to find some Cypriots who are in their 50s or 60s and were living in Cyprus in those years...


Brother Michalis, if you get more info regarding the facts and events of those years please tell me...

[Bananiot]

Makarios is an icon for many Cypriots but he was a politician too and his actions need to be put under the microscope. Politicians are accountable to public scrutiny and Makarios can not be exempted.

One of his biggest mistakes was to deny in 1970 autonomy for the TC community on a level of local self governing. He argued that self sefence constituted a form of federation, which of course, given the conditions at the time, was not based on two dinstinct geographical regions.

It is true that it wasn't just Makarios that said the loud "NO" in 1970 but his critics too, a "NO" that probably reached 99.9%, a catastrophic "NO" as it was later to be proved.

As it was written here, Denktash sent a letter to Makarios dated 27 April 1974 (can be found in the 3rd book, "My Deposition" of Clerides) agreeing on a number of thorny issues but asking in return local self government. Makarios did not accept the proposal despite Greece's directives and this is substantiated by letters exchanged betwwen the greek government and the cypriot government.

The greek junta is seen in this exchange of letters to apply pressure on Makarios for an agreed deal with the TC community.

Clerides disagreed with Makarios on this but he failed to come out in the open and for this he cried "Mea Culpa" in his "Deposition". He thought that by making his believes open he would draw the wrath of both the Makarios and Grivas functions and he would have been politically destroyed.

It is obvious here that Makarios bears most of the blame because he was the leader and he could draw popular support to an agreed solution to which even the junta agreed. Grivas would have been isolated and soon dead and gone.

That was another historic chance gone past us and everyone we miss brings us closer to partition.

[Bananiot]

Piratis, of course I have a complex. I have lost amost half of my country. Wouldn't you have a complex if you had lost half of yours?

[Bananiot]

The correct date, of course, is 27 April 1971.

[erolz]

So after all this waste of time for the expression of your skeptisism Erol, [snip] I am really anxious to hear just for once a straight answer from you.

All my answers have been 'straight' answers as far as I am concerned and the implication that they have not is quite insulting. Am I then solely responsible for this'waste of time'? I _feel_ a degree of skeptisim, that is a true and straight expression from me. Would you have me lie about what I feel to save wasting time? My feeling may be unjustified but I feel it none the less. I have tried to explain why I feel this and have been 'attacked' for doing so. Maybe you feel that I should accept that any talk of human rights is solely and purely about a firm belief in such rights and not about anything else, whoever it comes from and however they have behaved in the past? That just because someone claims human rights are paramount then they must be sincere and that just by stating their comitment to human rights there can be no doubt that they will uphold them for all and never abuse then in return?

tell us what do you conclude about a solution to the Cyprus problem in relation to respect of human rights?

My conclusion is that universal human rights for all in Cyprus should be an 'ideal end goal' and not an 'instant goal'. I believe that those that insist that ALL that is necessary for the Cyprus problem to be solved is for human rights to be upheld and imposed today are actualy not helping to create the necessary conditions for a true lasting and fair settlement.
It is also my belief that human rights are not a simple or black and white issues. That it is often the case that the enforcement of one persons or groups human rights impinges on the human rights of another person or group.

It is my belief that there are more urgent things that need to be persued at this stage in regards to the Cyprus problem than just a black and white simplisitic insistance in human rights immediately. I believe that the building of trust, respect and mutual understanding between the communites is a vital pre requist to a realistic establishment of human rights for all Cypriots. That to simply insist on the immediate restoration of all human rights within the whole of Cyprus, without first building trust, respect and mutual understanding is counter productive not constructive. I believe that much of the talk of human rights, on both sides, is actualy just the same age old propaganda based rehtoric, used to attack the other side, and not an expression of a genuine desire or belief in human rights or compatible with a true desire to build trust respect and mutual understanding.

In short I would like to see less 'lecturing' on _ideals_ of human rights, from both sides, and more practical work and ideas on specific down on the ground changes that lead to greater trust understanding and mutual respect between the communites. For this is in my opinion the real way to establish a situation in Cyprus where human rights exist for all and when the rights of one clash with those of another a fair balance is acheived.

[Piratis]

It is true that it wasn't just Makarios that said the loud "NO" in 1970 but his critics too, a "NO" that probably reached 99.9%, a catastrophic "NO" as it was later to be proved.

What was catastrophic were the actions of a minority of people who belong to EOKA-B and the junta to go against the will of that majority.

You accuse Makarios, while at the same time you support Cleredes who gave shielder to all those EOKA-B members who helped Turkey invade Cyprus. Now you even declare junta as innocent:

The greek junta is seen in this exchange of letters to apply pressure on Makarios for an agreed deal with the TC community.

So for you Cleredes, the junta and all those that went against democracy are innocent, and the ones to blame are the democratically elected Makarios and Papadopoulos.

Did Cleredes said 'Mea Coulpa' for the support he gave to EOKA-B members?

[Piratis]

My conclusion is that universal human rights for all in Cyprus should be an 'ideal end goal' and not an 'instant goal'.

And how do we reach to this "ideal end goal"? You (rightfully) accused us that in 1963 we didn't respect what we had agreed for in 1960, and that we had a different "end goal". So I hope you do not propose that we should again accept a solution with hopes that it will later change, right? We fall in that trap then, don't expect us to fall in it again.

I believe that the building of trust, respect and mutual understanding between the communites is a vital pre requist to a realistic establishment of human rights for all Cypriots. That to simply insist on the immediate restoration of all human rights within the whole of Cyprus, without first building trust, respect and mutual understanding is counter productive not constructive.

How can you expect trust and respect from us while at the same time you violate our human rights??

Both human rights and trust, respect and understanding will come gradually. Nobody said that human rights will be restored instantly within one day. We never asked for such thing. The solution will provide for human rights restoration within a specific time frame, say 10-15 years, and within that transitional period trust, respect and understanding will be promoted.

That it is often the case that the enforcement of one persons or groups human rights impinges on the human rights of another person or group.

Can you give me some examples that support this claim? I hope you don't mean that our human right to return to our properties violates your "human right" of using stolen properties.

I believe that much of the talk of human rights, on both sides, is actualy just the same age old propaganda based rehtoric

Oh really? So people that lost their homes and want to return to them are doing propaganda according to you? This is ridiculous to say the least.

[erolz]

All I am saying is that in my humble opinion, lecturing on human rights does little or nothing to restore those rights or build understanding or trust. It can be used and sometimes is used as a means of 'villifying' the other side and denying your own responsibilites. It can and is used as a weaopn against the other side in a propaganda war. For me human rights has little to do with what people say and everything to do with what they DO.

In terms of where one person or groups human rights can and do clash with anothers, in the context of the reality of the Cyprus problem as it exits today, we have on the one hand a valid basic right (imo) of TC to a degree of self determination and we have the equaly valid right of GC to freedom of travel and abode in Cyprus and to access and ownership of thier properties. With the situation as it stands at the moment these two 'rights' are in some conflict. What is needed is compromise and understanding on each side to agree a balance between the two. What is not needed is for one side to lecture the other on human rights.

Can you REALLY not accept that someone can express a belief in human rights but not actualy care or believe in them but simply use them as a means to an end? Do you REALLY not think this actually happens? On both sides?

[Piratis]

Can you REALLY not accept that someone can express a belief in human rights but not actualy care or believe in them but simply use them as a means to an end?

Sure, someone can do anything.

Do you REALLY not think this actually happens? On both sides?

On your side probably, since today your side is the one responsible for all human right violations.
But for our side this is definitely not the case. For us the "end" in the "means to an end" are human rights, along with democracy and independence.
It is your problem to think that we don't care about violations of our human rights (!!!!) and that we simply talk about them for some other reasons, but you are wrong!.

In terms of where one person or groups human rights can and do clash with anothers, in the context of the reality of the Cyprus problem as it exits today, we have on the one hand a valid basic right (imo) of TC to a degree of self determination

Find me this "right" here:
http://www.un.org/Overview/rights.html
I can also say that I have the right of owning a Porsche and go steal one, but I will still be a thief, right?

That said, we agreed that you will have not a degree but a a lot of self determination. But we did this as a compromise because we are the week side, and not because you had any kind of right to demand such thing.

But we never agreed that this self determination of yours should violate our basic human rights. Actually it is very possible to have your self determination, without violating at least our basic human rights. (we could even accept some violations of the not very basic ones!!!).

Instead of seeing how compromising we are, you keep asking for more and more, and now you even tell us that our human rights are just nothing but propaganda????
As I said in another threat we are ready for a decent compromise. Unfortunately it seems you want us to simply capitulate. (and such thing will never happen)