The Best Cyprus Community

Skip to content


'The unwanted child' … part 1

How can we solve it? (keep it civilized)

'The unwanted child' … part 1

Postby halil » Sat Nov 08, 2008 10:15 pm

Niyazi Kizilyurek
Neo-Nationalism and the transition of the Republic of Cyprus towards a Greek Cypriot State
“In the past 150 years the former Ottoman lands have been divided and left their place to nation-states with a different mosaic. Now each of these states have one ethnical group that is the ‘man of the house’. There is deep enmity between communities that once lived together. The nationalist ideology of the Exotic West is very strong. Setting governments and regimes based on the former Ottoman dominions in Lebanon and Cyprus are just pushy. As a matter of fact the Lebanese Civil War has made it crystal clear.
It is an utopia to believe that the lions and lambs in Cyprus could live together and be managed by a little child. The truth is that there were no lambs within the former Ottoman dominions. The former Ottoman dominions were mostly either lions or tigers.”
Arno Toynbee

The establishment of the Republic of Cyprus and the disappointment of the Greek Cypriots
Glafcos Clerides claims that the establishment of an independent Cyprus Government on the island was similar to the birth of an unwanted child. The government that was established without a ‘National Anthem’ had a flag that no-one seemed to accept as their own with no intentions of sacrificing their life for it. Clerides said, “The psychological conditions that the fragile young Republic of Cyprus was born into were as such.” Adding the following: “The Greek Cypriot community was disappointed that Enosis was not achieved and the rights, which were thought to be extravagant, given to the Turkish Cypriot community through the 1960 constitution caused feelings of rage and grudge.” According to Clerides the reasons behind the “unwise and fast” constitutional changes tried by the Greek Cypriot Leaders were these two facts; disappointment and rage.
As a matter of fact the Greek Cypriot community did indeed feel deep division with the establishment of the Republic of Cyprus and was dragged into the belonging and identity crisis. Although the Cyprus Government and the bodies of the government covered all the needs of practical day-to-day life, the newly established government did not let the Greek Cypriots feel themselves as an organic part of the Helene nation so did not mean much symbolically and emotionally. The establishment of the Republic of Cyprus brought the two notions, defined as being “unacceptable”, along: 1) The efforts for Enosis which has been ongoing for many years – this is not just a political struggle, this was a Major-Statement that gave meaning to all aspects of life – and was about to end; 2) Turkish Cypriots were the Constituent State of the Government. The Republic of Cyprus government was regarded as a structure that was “against Hellenism” and thought that it would erode the Hellenic Identity. For instance the Kyrenia Metropolitan published a declaration right after the Zurich and London agreements condemning the agreements and saying that the establishment of the Republic of Cyprus was threatening the 'Hellenic Identity of the island greatly.”
The Greek Cypriot politicians and eclectics that regarded Enosis as a ‘birthright’ felt such disappointment and rage about the bicommunal Cyprus Government that the amendments planned by Makarios on the Cyprus Constitution – that wanted to degrade the Turkish Cypriots to a minority group rather than a politically equal community – and the beginning of the ethnic fights in December 1963 was no surprise to anyone.

The London Conference and the attempt to turn the Republic of Cyprus to a Greek Cypriot Nation-State
Along with the 1963-64 ethnic violence the Greek Cypriot side ‘annulled’ the London and Zurich Agreements that helped establish the Cyprus State and started to talk about the right of the majority to ‘self determination’. The Turkish Cypriot side on the other hand defended that there was need for “a new political framework based on geographical division.” As a matter of fact at the January 1964, London meeting between the two sides suggestions were made based on these ideas. The Greek Cypriot side wanted the Guarantee and Alliance agreements to be ended immediately and the system of ‘single citizenship, single vote’ should be applied with the Greek Cypriots, who formed the majority, having the right to form the Cyprus Government administration. The Greek Cypriot delegation suggested that the Turkish Cypriots settle for ‘minority’ rights, aiming to turn the Republic of Cyprus into a nation-state governed by the Greek Cypriots suggesting that the “amount of extravagant minority rights” prevented the system from operating properly.
The evaluation by Rauf Denktas at the London Conference successfully summarises how the Greek Cypriot community was dragged into a ‘paradox’ with the establishment of the Republic of Cyprus: “On the one hand the Greek Cypriots wanted to feel, think and act the Hellenes in Greece openly claiming that Cyprus was not a nation, however on the other hand when the relations with the Turkish Cypriots and the Turkish Cypriot community’s rights were in question they claimed that Cyprus was a nation and the group with the advantage of higher population had the right to govern the minority group. The whole problem is caused by this selfish and paradoxical situation.”
In the London Conference the Turkish Cypriot side suggested that the two communities were completely separated from each other adding that the Turkish Cypriots could be located in “one or may be two dedicated areas.” They even calculated the population that would be moved to the dedicated areas. According to this 45,000 Turkish Cypriots and 35,000 Greek Cypriots would have to be moved from their current locations. The Turkish side also demanded that the political coverage to be found would have to be “based on a geographical base” adding that the Guarantee and Alliance Agreements should continue as is.
As you can see, the Greek Cypriot side defended the formation of a ‘Greek Cypriot nation-state’ changing the Cyprus State dramatically. The Turkish Cypriot leaders predicted “a federal state model based on geographical division.” These two separate visions prevented any kind of agreement which is why the London Conference was unsuccessful.


To be continued next week …
halil
Main Contributor
Main Contributor
 
Posts: 8804
Joined: Fri Mar 09, 2007 2:21 pm
Location: nicosia

Postby halil » Mon Nov 10, 2008 7:38 pm

'The unwanted child' … part 2

Fully concentrated, pure Enosis’

Due to the 1964 fights the Turkish Cypriot side was drawn back/sacked from government positions and the bicommunal Republic of Cyprus was left in the hands of Greek Cypriots and slowly began to act as a Greek Cypriot nation-state. As a matter of fact, in the 1965 dated ‘goodwill’ letter sent to the UN by Makarios, it was stated that the Turkish Cypriots would be given enlarged minority rights. The same year AKEL sent a letter to the communist parties worldwide asking for support for Makarios and denying the government model based on two ethnic communities. According to AKEL the fundamental element of the Republic of Cyprus, the bicommunal element was an “artificial result created by imperialism.”
Following the end of the London Conference, when in no positive results being achieved, the bloody fights in Cyprus continued for a while and the Greek Cypriot side tended openly towards Enosis. Greek Cypriots declared to the entire world that they “disregarded” the Zurich and London Agreements and started to look for ways to achieve Enosis through mutual talks with Greece.
All the while there were diplomatic initiatives by the UN, the US and NATO to find a solution to the Cyprus Problem. For example the US assigned Dean Acheson as the Private Representative of President Johnson. Acheson presented a ‘solution plan’ that was based on dissolving the Republic of Cyprus and was presented to both parties in July 1964. However Makarios officially announced that they rejected to the plan on 12 August 1964.
Makarios, who was determined not to accept any suggestion which did not involve the idea of ‘Self-Determination/Enosis’, was also very cautious towards the ‘coup-based-Enosis’ plan prepared by Greek Minister of Defence Karafulyas and accepted by Prime Minister Papandreou and King Constantine in August 1964. According to that plan the Greek Parliament and the Cyprus House of Representatives would assemble at the same time and the Greek Parliament would approve of the unilateral Greek Cypriot decision on Enosis. According to Karafulyas, the possibility of Turkey declaring war in such a case would go beyond 10%. Karafulyas, who wanted to explain the plan in detail, came to Cyprus and they had long debates with Makarios and tried to dissolve the worries of the Greek Cypriots. For example the Greek Cypriots were worried that once Enosis was achieved their living standards would regress. Karafulyas informed that there would be economic offers for Greek Cypriots and tax reduction would be made. For those with worries related to their political careers, he specifically emphasised that the current Greek Cypriots MPs would be Greek MPs and the Ministers would take their place next to the Greek Ministers at the Greek Cabinet. Makarios was convinced and asked: “This is ok in principle, however I have one question, will I be the assistant-King in the Greek Kingdom?”
In truth Makarios was not happy with the offer. According to information leaked from Prime Minister Papandreou’s court, it was speculated that following the achievement of Enosis Papandreou would give Turkey a military base on Cyprus (*The source of information was widely speculated to be George Papandreou’s son Andreas Papandreou – N.K.) Makarios had two conditions to agree: The Greek Cypriot House of Representatives would not be dissolved until 6 months after Enosis was achieved and the Cyprus Government would continue to be in power. Karafulyas could not relay his thoughts on the conditions as he was urgently called back to Greece.
During this period ‘Atofia-Enosis’ (concentrated pure Enosis) was brought forward by both Makarios and AKEL. They kept emphasising that even a minor compromise to Turkey would mean ‘Double-Enosis’ and this was “unacceptable.” As a matter of fact on 31 January 1966, in a meeting attended by Makarios and Greek Government officials, Makarios made the following statement to the Greek Government: “There can be no compromises in exchange for Enosis in Cyprus. The compromises to be made by Greece are the business of the Greek Government.” As a matter of fact Greece was enthusiastic to call most of Cyprus within their borders in exchange for minor ‘compromises’ to Turkey. In fact a statement by George Papandreou clearly reflects the Greek tensions back in those days: “If they present you with apartment building you can give a flat to someone else.” However, Makarios was surely not in favour of giving away any “flats” which kept him from delivering the “title deeds of the apartment building.”

The Republic of Cyprus changed to a Greek Cypriot Government
The conversion of the Republic of Cyprus into the Greek Cypriot Government, despite all that happened in that era, is a result of the policies followed by Makarios during the period. He brought such conditions to get attached to Greece that he seemed to be “willing” for Enosis yet making it impossible with the conditions needed to be achieved. On the other hand, he was dissolving one-by-one all the elements based on the bicommunal nature of the Republic of Cyprus. For instance he ended the Community Council and founded the Ministry of Education and Culture although it was not mentioned in the constitution as one of the government bodies.
He invited Turkish Cypriots to be the minority within the Greek Cypriot nation-state clearly announcing that he would not consider any suggestion other than that. As a matter of fact the response by then Parliament Speaker Glafcos Clerides to the 3 Turkish Cypriot MPs in the House of Representatives who wanted to attend the meeting regarding the electoral law amendment in 1965 was the proof which officially showed that the 1960 Republic of Cyprus had dissolved: “In order for you to attend the House of Representatives meeting you have to declare that you accept the Makarios Government as the only official government. You also need to know that there is no more need for the separate majority vote. Your votes will be equal to that of other MPs.”
This statement meant that the Republic of Cyprus, which was based on partnership, had ended. The Republic of Cyprus was now replaced by the Greek Cypriot Government and the Turkish Cypriots could take their place as the ‘minority’ if they wished to be there.

Routing of the Greek Cypriot Government
In 1967 there were heated fights once again in Cyprus. The Greek Cypriot National Guards Army, under the command of Grivas, attacked Kofunye (Gecitkale) village and killed 24 Turkish Cypriots. Turkey once again began war preparations. Following US mediation the Greek Cypriot side accepted Turkey’s conditions and sent the Greek soldiers, that had entered the island illegally, and Grivas to Greece and the danger of war was eliminated.
After the 1967 Kofunye crisis there were important steps taken towards the conversion of the Republic of Cyprus into a Greek Cypriot Republic. Makarios made a deep-rooted change in the policy he had been pursuing until then distinguishing ‘efkteo’/ ‘efikton’ (What is achievable and what is longed for) and throwing it in the political scene. According to this Enosis was an “ideal that has been longed for” however is was not “achievable” under these circumstances. Independence on the other hand was “not wanted” but then again it was “achievable.” This meant that: Enosis policies have been hand-in-hand with the efforts to get the Republic of Cyprus to continue to function although converted into a Greek Cypriot Republic by then. However, from then on they would focus only on continuing the Republic of Cyprus. As a matter of fact in 1968 at the solution process for the Cyprus Problem it was said that there would be amendments to the constitution of the Republic of Cyprus and the negotiations would be “better” than the Zurich and London Agreements.
The main goal of the Greek Cypriot side at the 1968 negotiations process was to get the Turkish Cypriots described as a “minority” within the Republic of Cyprus and to convert the system to a Greek Cypriot nation-state.
The Turkish Cypriot side had to attend the negotiations on this basis and took on the role of being the side to stay silent as their rights pending from the 1960 constitution were being decreased. Despite all, Makarios “wanted more than that” at the negotiations so that there was no agreement. In a time when the Turkish side stepped back accepting 13 constitutional amendments however just insisting on autonomy in local authorities and administration, showed no flexibility, in the words of Pavlos Dinglis; “He wanted a Greek Cypriot State to rule over the Turkish Cypriots.”
The words of Dekleriz, Greek constitution expert, who came to the island to attend the Extended Meetings during the time and who was in close relations with Makarios; left no reason to doubt about Makarios’ intentions: “For him (meaning Makarios N.K.) the ideal and most probable solution was to continue the government which was formed of only Greek Cypriots offering Turkish Cypriots limited access to government. During the time we spent working together the thing that impressed me most was his belief that Hellenism would not be harmed as long as the ‘de facto’ situation continued.” As a matter of fact Makarios was in no real hurry to achieve a solution and believed that one day the Turkish side would accept all the conditions. In fact, following the Greek Coup and the Turkish Interference, at the 30th November 1974 Leaders’ summit in Athens he made the following statement: “The meetings were being handled in a comfortable medium. We could have achieved more.”

Post 1974 and Neo-Nationalism
The effort to continue the Republic of Cyprus, which came up in the 60s unintentionally just because Enosis could not be achieved, gained more importance after 1974 and caused a new political awareness within the Greek Cypriots. As a result of the campaign which was started to protect and strengthen the existence of the Republic of Cyprus the Greek Cypriot Government gained symbolic importance other than practical importance in the eyes of the Greek Cypriot Community. Independence Day - chosen randomly to be October 1 - was first celebrated after 1974 being one of the most important indicators that ‘citizenship awareness’ had developed by the Greek Cypriot Republic’s Government. Until then the emphasis was on the fact that the island was a ‘Hellenic island’ but the focus now shifted towards there being a Republic of Cyprus. The message delivered to all schools by the Ministry of Education on the first Independence Day celebrations in 1979 clearly showed the transition. The message said: “All students and Teachers should protect and help strengthen the Cypriot Government. In no condition would we allow the State symbols, offices and bodies be abused as they have been abused in the past with several excuses.”
This transition certainly affected the Greek Cypriot Communities perception of ‘Identity’. The Greek Cypriot majority, that defined themselves as ‘Hellenic’ above all other now defined themselves as ‘Greek Cypriot’. In the political arena the Greek Cypriots who could not cope with the identity of the Republic of Cyprus due to expectations of uniting with Greece were now proud to be citizens of the Republic of Cyprus.
The ‘paradoxical situation’ which was defined by Rauf Denktas in 1964 at the London Conference is now out of the scene. There is certainly a change in the theory. Today a Greek Cypriot can easily relate to the idea of being a Greek Cypriot however also a cultural part of the Hellenic culture. However, this is not the question that needs to be answered today. The question to be asked is: Would the Greek Cypriots that count the Republic of Cyprus as “their own” want to get together with the Turkish Cypriot as political equals? The same question is also valid for Turkish Cypriots - however that is the topic for another column.
halil
Main Contributor
Main Contributor
 
Posts: 8804
Joined: Fri Mar 09, 2007 2:21 pm
Location: nicosia

Postby Nikitas » Tue Nov 11, 2008 8:30 am

Interesting analysis by professor Kizilyurek. He does not mention the reasons for the rise of Neo Nationalism among GCs after 1974 and that would have been interesting.
Nikitas
Main Contributor
Main Contributor
 
Posts: 7408
Joined: Thu Aug 09, 2007 2:49 pm

Postby Tim Drayton » Tue Nov 11, 2008 11:21 am

Nikitas wrote:Interesting analysis by professor Kizilyurek. He does not mention the reasons for the rise of Neo Nationalism among GCs after 1974 and that would have been interesting.


He has addressed this issue in his books, and to summarise his analysis in a single sentence he would argue that it was a reaction to the feeling of having been stabbed in the back by the motherland.
User avatar
Tim Drayton
Main Contributor
Main Contributor
 
Posts: 8296
Joined: Sat Jul 21, 2007 1:32 am
Location: Limassol/Lemesos

Postby Nikitas » Tue Nov 11, 2008 4:04 pm

Tim,

Thank you for the info. Kizilyurek is not only bilingual, he is also bicultural, he understands GCs. His reasoning is dead on.
Nikitas
Main Contributor
Main Contributor
 
Posts: 7408
Joined: Thu Aug 09, 2007 2:49 pm

Postby insan » Sun Jan 11, 2009 7:09 am

Tim Drayton wrote:
Nikitas wrote:Interesting analysis by professor Kizilyurek. He does not mention the reasons for the rise of Neo Nationalism among GCs after 1974 and that would have been interesting.


He has addressed this issue in his books, and to summarise his analysis in a single sentence he would argue that it was a reaction to the feeling of having been stabbed in the back by the motherland.


When i analyze the type of propaganda made by Hellenic side including the ones that were in the neo-nationalist movement after the events of 1974; it seems to me more like as a rush to drawing a curtain over the guilt of the past in order to bring a fresh blood to their public opinion, create international impressions in favour of themselves and put all the blame on TCs and Turkey. There was nothing else for them to do under those circumstances and even if i don't remember wrong, Makarios admitted this in one of his interviews.
User avatar
insan
Main Contributor
Main Contributor
 
Posts: 9044
Joined: Mon Jun 30, 2003 11:33 pm
Location: Somewhere in ur network. ;]

Postby zan » Sun Jan 11, 2009 2:59 pm

insan wrote:
Tim Drayton wrote:
Nikitas wrote:Interesting analysis by professor Kizilyurek. He does not mention the reasons for the rise of Neo Nationalism among GCs after 1974 and that would have been interesting.


He has addressed this issue in his books, and to summarise his analysis in a single sentence he would argue that it was a reaction to the feeling of having been stabbed in the back by the motherland.


When i analyze the type of propaganda made by Hellenic side including the ones that were in the neo-nationalist movement after the events of 1974; it seems to me more like as a rush to drawing a curtain over the guilt of the past in order to bring a fresh blood to their public opinion, create international impressions in favour of themselves and put all the blame on TCs and Turkey. There was nothing else for them to do under those circumstances and even if i don't remember wrong, Makarios admitted this in one of his interviews.


The author of the AKRITAS plan only died the other week.....Tpap... :wink:
User avatar
zan
Leading Contributor
Leading Contributor
 
Posts: 16213
Joined: Wed Nov 02, 2005 8:55 pm

Re: 'The unwanted child' … part 1

Postby Get Real! » Sun Jan 11, 2009 3:30 pm

halil wrote:'The unwanted child' … part 1

And here I was thinking this is a thread about Zan growing up in the Green Line... :?
User avatar
Get Real!
Forum Addict
Forum Addict
 
Posts: 42235
Joined: Mon Feb 26, 2007 12:25 am
Location: Nicosia

Re: 'The unwanted child' … part 1

Postby zan » Sun Jan 11, 2009 3:44 pm

Get Real! wrote:
halil wrote:'The unwanted child' … part 1

And here I was thinking this is a thread about Zan growing up in the Green Line... :?


Where I met a man and
asked what his aim is
I am here to get a flag
and further my name of Matsakis

He left the flags of blue
And headed where red is the hue
Leaving behind a scented trail
For fear of ending up in jail

His house was full
He could not go home
For trinkets stacked
bought for nothing or on loan
:lol:
User avatar
zan
Leading Contributor
Leading Contributor
 
Posts: 16213
Joined: Wed Nov 02, 2005 8:55 pm


Return to Cyprus Problem

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 1 guest