Cyprus Conflict: past, present and future.

[s3kiz]

Greeting to all;

Although the issue relating to the Cyprus Conflict was touched by me on the “Russia vs Azerbaijan” thread located at http://www.defencetalk.com/forums/showthread.php?p=138050#post138050 I think it deserves its own individual thread as the Cyprus Conflict is a long lasting problem that has been taking its preoccupation in international politics, with origins perhaps not only dating back 30 years but hundreds of years prior.

Besides the “human-suffering factors” that come with it and the international political weight of the Cyprus Conflict, it also brings with it military-strategic issues. As been an island in the eastern meditteranean, it is closesly positioned to energy resources and transit routes of the mid-east geography, and in the vicinity of the Arab-Israeli conflict.

Militarily-strategically speaking, the island of Cyprus is like a static aircraft carrier positioned in a geography of great importance, hence the presence of Turkish, Greek and United Kingdom military presence on the island, in addition to the “human-factor” and international politics aspect.

And it is on this point that I think an individual thread is deemed appropriate for this conflict, and I request the understanding and permission from the monitors and participators of this forum for the establishment of this thread.

With that said I call upon all, not only Turks and Greeks, to participate in this thread with their views, ideas and in mutual respect to study the Cyprus Conflict and its resultant human-military-strategic aspects.

Sure many thousands of Turks and Greeks suffered on the island, due to clashes, nationalistic ambitions, may they all rest in peace. Sure both Turkish and Greek sides have suffered and continue to suffer with the many loved ones they lost and are still labelled as “missing” by both sides. Not to mention the mutual dislocation of the islands populace (Turkish and Greek), still been felt in the hearts of many generations all the way upto our times, also resulting into material losses, homes etc by both sides.

But all the above mentioned sufferings are mutually felt on both sides of the island, and no disagreements can be resolved without taking an objective look into the ambitions and events that created this conflict.

To solve conflicts, it is necessary to go to the sources of the problem and work our way up from it, instead of wording our current grievences and sufferings. Because only through an objective indept analysis of a problem can we see the “bigger-picture” to its causes and origins and try to implement solutions that will be accepted by both sides and long lasting, not merely a temporary solution giving birth to further bigger conflicts in time.

So, I invite everyone, be they Turk/Greek or anyone, who has interest in this matter, in mutual respect and understanding, to present facts, opinions and ideas about this conflict and how it effets and reflects on the geographies people and also military strategies.

Cyprus Conflict and the Distorted Facts
(or A POST-MODERNIST (STRUCTURALIST) STUDY OF THE DOMINANT GREEK CYPRIOT DISCOURSES)

Cyprus Conflict is one of the problematic and long-lasting conflicts that has kept the international community busy for a long time. The conflict has been in the UN's agenda for 30 years. The UN peace keeping forces (UNFICYP) have been in Cyprus to obstruct violent confrontation of the two communities since 1964.

In this paper, we are going to analyze some texts - mainly Greek Cypriot, and try to account on the type of discursive practices used by the Greek Cypriot governments both in the 1960's and in the 1990's.

We shall use discursive practices in a hermenutical approach to account on the change of the Greek Cypriot government's 1960's main discourse after 1974 (Greek coup d'Žat and the successive Turkish military intervention/invasion) which created a distorted reality and how the current discourse influences the negotiation process, between the two communities, under the auspices of the UN.

Before we analyze the texts it is useful to give a brief history of what happened in Cyprus between the periods 1960 and 1974 from the perspectives of two sides, so that the events and concepts in the texts will be clear to the reader.

In 1960 the island was granted its independence by the British. With the Treaties of Zurich, London and Nicosia, an independent, bi-communal state was established in 1960. The state, i.e., the Republic of Cyprus, was comprised of the Turkish Cypriot and the Greek Cypriot communities which had the status of co-founders and equal partners, having 20% and 80% of the population, respectively. A constitution which safeguards the rights of the people of both communities was established. According to the constitution, the President was to be a Greek Cypriot and the Vice-President a Turkish Cypriot; the Turks was to get 30% of the seats in the parliament while the Greek Cypriots 70%; the President and the Vice-President was to have veto power separately on all governmental issues; each community was to have the right to decide by itself on issues concerning only that community; issues concerning both sides were to require separate majority of each community in the parliament.

It was a compromise solution by both sides among the other alternatives: two separate states, a condominium, division of the island between Greece and Turkey, or continued British rule.

The life of this partnership (i.e., the Republic of Cyprus), however, lasted only three years. It is very difficult to find the real story of what really happened after the establishment of the Republic of Cyprus. Each side has its own version of the history and the events in these two separate histories have internal coherence that make them logical within each version.

In 1963 the Greek Cypriot side wanted to make 13 amendments to the Constitution of 1960 which, according to the Turkish Cypriots, would deprive the Turkish Cypriots of the status of equal partner of the Republic. Even eight of them were so fundamental that they were included in the unalterable Basic Articles of the Constitution, such as that of [Turkish Cypriots'] having veto power over governmental decisions, of having their own municipalities, etc. The main objective of the amendments, according to the Turkish Cypriots was to put the Turkish Cypriots into the status of minority (from the status of co-founder and politically equal partner of the Republic) - i.e., to change the bi-communal republic into a unitary state in which the voting power [of the Greek Cypriots] would be paramount.*1.

However, according to the Greek Cypriots, the 1960 Constitution and the international treaties (London, Zurich and Nicosia) were imposed by the external powers (Britain, Greece and Turkey) and that they were signed by the Greek Cypriot leadership under force of the Guarantor powers.

The Turkish Cypriot leadership rejected the amendments. In one instance the Turkish Cypriots took the issue of "establishing separate municipalities" (Article 173) to the Supreme Constitutional Court. On 25th April 1963 the Court ruled that Article 173 had not been complied with, but President (also Greek Archbishop) Makarios declared that he would ignore it, and did ignore it (Cyprus Mail 12.2.63)*2.

On 21st May the neutral President of the Court who was a West German citizen resigned. At that time, according to the Turkish Cypriots, Makarios dismissed the Turkish Cypriot cabinet ministers, members of the House of Representatives and all the Turkish Cypriot civil servants. He also discharged all the Turkish Cypriot diplomats at the United Nations and in foreign capitals *3.

The story is again different from the Greek Cypriot perspective. They believe that the Turkish Cypriot cabinet ministers and the members of the House left their positions voluntarily in order to protest the Greek Cypriot proposal of the thirteen amendments, and that the Turkish civil servants were forced by those ministers to leave their jobs in order to form a separate Turkish Cypriot administration.

From 1963 to 1974 the Turks were forced into exodus with thousands killed and missing due to Greek junta forces occupying the island supported by local Greek Cypriot militia, according to the Greek Cypriot claim, the Turks chose to migrate and form their homogeneous enclaves. Due to this ethnic cleansing and forced migration, the Turkish Cypriots left their land and homes which constituted 30% of the registered ownership of the island in 1960 and migrated to the Turkish Cypriot enclaves which constituted 3% of the island.

On July 15, 1974 a coup organized and sent forces, from the then military junta regime in, Greece to Cyprus to overthrow the Republic of Cyprus (co-founded by Greeks and Turks on the island) and to unite Cyprus with Greece (this movement been called Enosis in Greek). On July 20, 1974 Turkey, under Article 4 of the Treaty of Guarantee (1960) sent troops to the island (code-named Operation Atilla) to drive away the coup d'Zat from Greece.

In the 1960's the Greek Cypriot leadership wanted to unite the island with Greece (i.e., Enosis). For them, that was perfectly legal and justifiable since they formed 80% of the population. So, basically their struggle was not to establish a bi-communal Republic of Cyprus but to gain the right of self determination so that they can unite with their motherland (Greece).

However, the earlier mentioned Agreements (the 1960 Constitution and the international treaties of London, Zurich and Nicosia) gave the two communities (Turkish and Greek) the right of self governmennt separately and gave both communities in the island the right of "sovereignty" to share*4.

The below texts clearly shows the type of discourse which was dominant among the Greek Cypriot leadership in the 1960's:

ENOSIS (union with Greece) discourse before 1974 :

"Unless this small Turkish community forming part of the Turkish race..is expelled, the duties of the Eoka *5 can never be considered terminated."
(President Makarios' Statement, Circa 1960's) (Negotiating for Survival. p. 7).

"The aim of the Cyprus struggle was not establishment of a republic. These Agreements only laid the foundations."
(President Makarios' Statement, March 13, 1963).

"Union of Cyprus with Greece is an aspiration always cherished within the hearts of all Greek Cypriots. It is impossible to put an end to this aspiration by establishing a republic."
(President Makarios' Statement, London TIMES, April 9, 1963).

"It is true that the goal of our struggle is to annex Cyprus to Greece."
(President Makarios' Statement, Uusi Soumi of Stockholm, September 1963).

"Freedom for us means only the integration of this souther outpost of Hellenism into the national entity.(Greece).."
(Tasos Papadopoulos' Statement, October 23, 1967).

"The struggle of Cyprus is the struggle of all Hellenism. Cyprus, where the Greek virtue is being tested, is today the place where the Greek history and Greek struggle are continuing..."
(Foreign Minister Spyros Kyprianou's Statement, March 24, 1971).

As can be seen from the above texts, despite the co-founding of the island with Turks and Greeks and the contstituion and the above mentioned international treaties, the island was claimed to be a Greek island by the largest of the two "partners".

Since the 1963 constitutional crisis the Turks had been absent from the government and they had been living in their forced homogeneous enclaves. So the Greek Cypriot side was enjoying a de facto "unitary state" in terms of government machinery and territory. Also, the Turkish Cypriots were, then forced into the de facto "minority." Clearly, there was "Enosis Discourse" which dominated the texts that were produced by the Greek Cypriot leadership.

[s3kiz]

However, when we look at the texts below which were also produced by the Greek Cypriot leadership - yet, this time in the 1990's, we should be able to distinguish a totally different discourse that dominates the texts:

INVASION AND INDEPENDENCE DISCOURSE AFTER 1974 :

"Independence came to the Cypriots after centuries of foreign rule (British) and after a hard guerrilla war against the colonial power. Makarios, the leader of the anti-colonial struggle, and first President of the Republic of Cyprus, welcomed it as the herald of a new age for the people of Cyprus: According to the 1960 Cyprus constitution, which is still the constitution under which the Cyprus governemnt and house of representatives function and the courts dispense justice, the Turkish Cypriots were guaranteed a privileged position as a minority. They were guaranteed full cultural and religious autonomy and reinforced political representation..."
(Cyprus After the Turkish Invasion, "They Make a Desert and They Call It Peace," 1991. p.37).

(Disregarding the ethnic cleansing and attempted genocide of the Turks by the Greek forces):
"For hundreds of years Greek and Turkish Cypriots lived in social harmony and economic interdependence in the villages and towns of Cyprus). This web of interdependence was only disturbed after protracted and violent attacks against it (referring to Operation Atilla). Even after incidents, planned and instigated to prove that Greek and Turkish Cypriots could not live together, ordinary people again and again proved the opposite until they were torn apart by the Attila Operation*6 1974. [The Turkish Cypriots]' interdependence with the rest of the population of Cyprus is indicated by the fact that until 1974 they lived intermingled in towns and villages all over Cyprus. The mass of Greek and Turkish Cypriots lived and cooperated peacefully in an atmoshpere of religious and cultural tolerance."
(Cyprus After the Turkish Invasion, "They Make a Desert and They Call It Peace," 1991. p. 26).

"The Cyprus problem primarily is a question of Turkey's attack on the Cyprus and invasion of part of its territory which was undoubtedly made possible by foreign powers and the coup which constituted a betrayal."
(Letter from Greek Cypriot President Vassiliou to EDEK party leader Lyssarides, February 1988)

Here, we see that the "Enosis" discourse was replaced by the "Invasion" discourse. Makarios, who was giving clear and blunt "Enosis" messages and calling on Greek Cypriots to struggle for Enosis in the 1960's resulting in the deaths and forced exodus of thousands of the islands Turkish inhabitants, been forced to exile into 3% of the island which previously they owned 30% of, is now shown as if he "welcomed [THE REPUBLIC OF CYPRUS] as the herald of a new age for the people of Cyprus" The Turkish Cypriots are portrayed as the lucky "minority" who enjoyed vast rights and privileges of living under the Republic of Cyprus until 1974, when the Turks from Turkey "invaded" the island.

The general picture one gets from the above texts is that there was "social harmony," "cultural and religious tolerance" and "interdependence" between the two communities, and that they were living together intermingled. So, the Turkish Cypriots are no longer the "this small Turkish community forming part of the Turkish race..[should be] expelled" (1960's), but a happy "minority." There was also a little mention about the "coup d'Žat" that was sent by Greece to unite the island with Greece (Enosis) which caused the landing of the Turkish troops in Cyprus five days later (July 20, 1974).

So, basically the Turkish "intervention" or "invasion" was shown to happen without any reason which also gives one the implication that it was an action of pure aggression and violence of an imperialist (expansionist) power.

The events which was portrayed above (1963-74) by the 1991 Greek Cypriot government are in great conflict with what Glafcos Clerides (present Greek Cypriot President) stated in his memoirs which were published in the early the 1990's.

CONTRADICTING DISCOURSES WITHIN GREEK CYPRIOT COMMUNITY :

"It was by the virtue of equality of powers vested in the Greek President and the Turkish Vice-President that the partnership of the two communities was created by the Zurich agreements."
("My Deposition" by Glafcos Clerides [former President of Greek Cypriot Republic of Cyprus], Vol.2, p. 382)

The constitutional crisis of the year 1963 and the following ethnic cleansing and forced exodus of Turks disrupted the constitutional order, the continuity, and the partnership status of the two communities, which was created by the the Zurich Agreements. Because of the disruption of constitutional order a peculiar situation was created by this virtue, the state authority became under the absolute control of the Greeks, and the government continued its international recognition, while on the other hand internally, Turkish enclaved were created within the territory of the Republic, and elementary organization for the purpose of governing and defence of Turkish Cyptiots were established by their community.

After the crisis of 1967 (Kophiniou Crisis) the above disruption of constitutional order became more clear and showed tendencies of permanency. Thus in December 1967, the elementary political-defence organization of the Turks in the enclaves developed into a "temporary Administration" on the basis of a charter, and at the same time the political and military authorities were seperated from the Greek administration.

In the years that followed a steady, stage by stage development is noted in the Turkish administration, with the seperation in its legislative, executive and judicial powers. An administrative organization is created, as well as police force and an army. The increase of the financial resources of the Turkish Cypriots through economic aid from Turkey permitted the functioning of their administration on a more permanent basis, a fact which they made clear, by renaming their "Temporary Turkish Cypriot Administration" to "Turkish Cypriot Administration”, eventually resulting in the Turkish Republic of Northern Cyprus (TRNC) in our days.

”Thus there exist today in Cyprus two poles of power on a seperate geographical basis i.e. the government of the Cyprus Republic, controlling the largest section of the territory of the state and internationally recognized, and the “Turkish Cypriot Administration”, which controls a very limited area and is not internationally recognized, but has already taken almost all the characteristics of a small state."
("My Deposition" by Glafcos Clerides [former President of Greek Cypriot Republic of Cyprus], Vol.3, pp. 236, 237).

The reality of what actually happened in the 1960's and 1970's in the above texts is in great conflict with the portrayal of the reality in the government's texts in the 1990's.

Clerides stated that " lot of wrongs have been done to Turkish Cypriots" and that "the Greek Cypriot side has tried to do away with the agreements and to deprive the Turkish Cypriots from their rights," that "the Enosis road was followed". He also stated that the Turkish Cypriots were living in their homogeneous enclaves (3%) and that they were absent from the government of which they were once the equal co-founder *7. This argument is also in conflict with the reality pictured by the Greek Cypriot government in the 1990's: that the Turkish and the Greek Cypriots were living intermingly in harmony until Turkish "invasion."

The attempt of Greek Cypriot government to present the Turkish "military operation" similar to the "Invasion" of Kuwait by Iraq was also commented on by Clerides:

"I am sorry that it is wishful thinking and a false dream to believe that we will be successful in such a thing. Such an evaluation is not realistic. Why? There is no Security Council resolution that recognizes that an invasion took place in Cyprus. The Security Council has not condemned Turkey as an occupationist so far. If we are lead to such a recourse, they will tell us at the Security Council that there was a (Greek) coup in Cyprus, the legal government was overthrown, the constitution was violated and Turkey (AS A GUARANTOR POWER) had the right of intervention. The things that count are arguments, not slogans."
("My Deposition" by Glafcos Clerides [former President of Greek Cypriot Republic of Cyprus], Vol.3]

[s3kiz]

It is clear from all the above texts that there exists today an "Invasion" discourse in the Greek Cypriot government texts which portrays the "facts" of 1960's and 1970's very different from the government texts in the 1960's and early the 1970's which were mainly dominated by the "Enosis" discourse.

The "Invasion" discourse of the government is challenged by both some internal non-governmental (Greek Cypriot) texts, eg., Clerides' memoirs, and foreign texts, such as the dozens of UN Security Council Resolutions which agree on the need of UN peace keeping forces in Cyprus and Secretary General reports*7 since 1963.

The "Invasion" discourse puts the Turkish Cypriots into "minority" status and also makes it more difficult to reach a solution to the Cyprus Conflict, based on the UN Resolutions and Secretary General's "Office of Good Mission.7"

So, the question is "Why does the Greek Cypriot government pursue this discourse which portrays a distorted reality of the 1960's and 1970's, and makes the negotiation process harder?"

There might be many different answers to that question drawn from many contemporary theories. However, this writer believes that the question can mostly be tackled with the "Realist Theory" - more specifically with the "Power Politics" - which many theorists and academicians believe to be already dead: The Greek Cypriot government is still recognized as the legal government of the 1960 "Republic of Cyprus." With the 1983 Resolution 541, the Security Council, concerned at the declaration by the Turkish Cypriot authorities issued on 15 November 1983 which purports to create an independent state in northern Cyprus, the Turkish Republic of Northern Cyprus.

”The attempt to create a "Turkish Republic of Northern Cyprus" is invalid, and will contribute to a worsening of the situation in Cyprus." This shows that the Greek Cypriot side has a strong position on the table, i.e., being recognized by the UN as the legal government of the "Republic of Cyprus" and the other side (Turkish Cypriots) without any "governmental" title, or with an unrecognized state (i.e., "TRNC").

The current "status quo" seems to be the Greek Cypriot side's BATNA (Best Alternative to a Negotiated Agreement). To change the current "Invasion" discourse and sit for negotiations, based on the UN resolutions, would not satisfy its "interests" and would deprive it from a considerable power the Greek side now enjoys - as the "legal" government of the whole Cyprus.

If we look at the following text of the UN Resolution 649 (March 12, 1990), it will be clear to demonstrate what the Greek Cypriot government has to give up to change its present "Invasion" discourse which obstructs a solution based on the UN Resolutions:

“The Security Council "Calls upon the leaders of the two communities to pursue their efforts to reach freely a mutual acceptable solution providing for the establishment of a federation that will be bi-communal as regards the constitutional aspects and bi-zonal as regards the territorial aspects ... and to cooperate, on equal footing, with the Secretary General..."
(UN Resolution 649, March 12, 1990).

Therefore, for a UN-based solution, the "Invasion" discourse should be modified to accommodate the following points of the UN Resolution:

* give up the "unitary state" concept for a "bi-zonal" "federation"
* give up its argument that the Turkish Cypriots are a "minority" and accept the concept of "bi-communality" and,
*negotiate with them on "equal footing"

As can be understood from the above UN resolution (649), it would put the Greek Cypriot side into a troubled position if it pursued the Enosis discourse (union with Greece) in the 1990's. The "invasion" discourse, although in opposition with the UN Resolution, at least gives some room for modification in certain conditions *8 and that it can be seen as “one side is trying to strengthen its hand on the negotiation table” - that is, one can argue that it is giving up a lot in the negotiation, so that it can demand more concessions from the other side.

As we stated earlier, the "Invasion" discourse can be modified to accommodate itself to a UN proposed solution in certain cases. However, there is another powerful discourse within the Greek Cypriot community which, although not widely popular, is capable of blocking the way to a negotiated solution. This discourse is a mixture of the 1960's Enosis discourse and the government's post-1974 "Invasion" discourse. It borrowed the idea of "union of Cyprus with Greece" from the Enosis discourse and the claims that "Turkish invasion was an act of pure aggression and violence" from the "Invasion" discourse:

CONTINUATION OF PRE-1974 DISCOURSE INTERTWINED WITH THE INVASION DISCOURSE TODAY :

"Turks are a barbarous people. They are the last barbarians of civilization. A people with violent instincts and a thirst for blood. We rather live with savage animals than the Turks. Until the Turks digest that Cyprus is Greek they can live in this country only as a minority. And our slogan can not be anything else but "best Turk is a dead Turk." The union of Cyprus with Greece is the only democratic solution for the Cyprus problem. No to the talks, no to the federation, Enosis and let channels fill with the flow of blood."
(Excerpt appeared in Philelephteros, November 11, 1990)

"If the Cretan Greeks (given as example because the Cretan Greeks ethnically cleansed the island of its Turkish population since Greek independence) were living in Cyprus today not a Turkish Cypriot would have been in the North.”
(Statement of the Commander of the Greek Cypriot National Guard General Siradakis, Selides Magazine, October 3, 1992).

“I see the fate of Greece and Cyprus as being intertwined. It would not be realistic to think that Cyprus can today fight for a prolonged period of time without Greece or that Greece is not interested in the fate of Cyprus. Because what is Cyprus? is it not Greece. I say to the Greeks who come here "The place that you have come to is not a foreign place, it is Greece.'"
(Statement of the Commander of the Greek Cypriot National Guard General Siradakis, Selides Magazine, October 3, 1992).

The discourse in the above texts (especially the first one) is much more dangerous than the "Invasion" discourse. Here, there is no room for a negotiated solution based on the UN proposals. Instead it suggests a very "BLOODY" solution in the name of "DEMOCRACY" - i.e., "Enosis." It makes one think of 'how a "barbarous", instinctively "violent", less-than-the-"savage"- "animals," "Turks" such as this writer, can be incorporated as a "minority" in a "democratic solution"!

The answer has already been provided: by a "bloody" way. Although the above discourse is not widely popular among the Greek Cypriots, it is not discouraged by the government either. That gives the impression to the "other side" (Turks) that the Greek Cypriot government is actually supporting that discourse, which also plays a big role in the failure of the negotiations.

From the above study we got the evidence that there is at least one main "discourse" that dominates Greek Cypriot government's global policy towards a certain issue:

In the 1960's and early the 1970's the dominant discourse in the Greek Cypriot government policies towards the Cyprus Conflict was the "Enosis" discourse. It greatly helped to prepare and execute the 1974 coup sent by Greek military regime. Failure of that action (the coup) or, rather the defeat of the coup by Turkish military operation created another powerful discourse (the "Invasion" discourse) that dominated the future policies of the Greek Cypriot government.

With the above study, we tried also, to account on the failure of the UN sponsored negotiations in terms of the Greek Cypriot "Invasion" discourse. However, that is only part of the explanation. Because there are many discursive practices within the above mentioned events with texts (especially government texts) that are in opposition to the UN proposed solutions to the Cyprus Conflict.

As a matter of fact, the most recent proposal of the UN to the two communities of Cyprus is to implement a series of "Confidence-Building-Measures" that will decrease the lack of trust between the two communities which, according to this writer, fostered by the "dominant discourses" of the two communities leaderships.

The Confidence-Building-Measures of the UN call on the two communities to give more chance to their people to come together and establish more channels of communication through "joint committees," "joint workshops," "joint cultural events," etc. This, we believe, is an implication that the first-tract diplomacy of the political leaders has failed due to its dominant discursive practice. The second- and third-tract diplomacy of the people (rather than the leaders) might help to create new discursive practices that can open the way to a successful negotiated solution.

1. Stephen, Michael (1986). "Cyprus, Two Nations in One Island", Bow Educational Briefing, No.5, G. Britain.
3. To cut the channel of the Turkish Cypriots to present their case to the world.
4. Each community didn't have the right of "self determination" separately. An indivisible "sovereignty" was given to both communities to share.
5. The Greek Cypriot guerrilla organization which was originally formed to drove the British colonizers away from the island.
6. The name of the July 20, 1974 Turkish military operation.
7. "Cyprus is the common home of the Greek Cypriot community and of the Turkish Cypriot community. Their relationship is not one of majority and minority, but one of two communities in the State of Cyprus. The mandate given to me by the Security Council makes it clear that my mission of good offices is with the two communities. My mandate is also explicit that the participation of the two communities in this process is on equal footing" (The UN Secretary General's report to the Security Council, S/21183, March 8, 1990).
8. In 1986, some Muslim countries, such as Indonesia, Bangladesh and Pakistan, threatened to recognize the "Turkish Republic of Northern Cyprus (TRNC)" if the negotiations fail to give a solution. So, the possibility of a recognition of the "TRNC" is a condition which forces the Greek Cypriot government to modify its "Invasion" discourse to reach a UN-based solution - since the recognition of the "TRNC" is worse than the current UN proposed federal solution for the Greek Cypriot side.

[s3kiz]

The above analysis was written some years ago, higlighting the events of the Cyprus Conflict we have been witnessing for over three decades.

If we are to forget the above events, aims, ambitions, ethnic cleansing and attempted genocide of the islands Turkish people by the Greeks, and even neglegt the fact that Turks have been co-inhabitants of the island since 1571 (considering that many people started to inhabit new lands in the 1500s and if they were to relinquish those lands, then there would not be USA, Canada, Australia, Russia and many EU countries etc etc etc) we can not come to a just solution.

Since the occurance of this conflict many efforts were made by the United Nations, USA, UK, Turkiye and to some parts with Greece, but a just settlement has not been met to this day, with continual rejections by the Greek Cypriot Government as they have the international “upper-hand”, with the world public already made to think that Turks out of no reason and due to pure agression “invaded” the island in 1974, with the Operation Atilla, which infact stopped the ethnic clashes on the island and prevented the undergoings of an ethnic cleansing, bringing relative peace.

The latest such effort was the 2004 United Nations sponsered-supported-organized plan to reunify the island, settling the claims of boths sides and bringing peace to this long lasting conflict. The then Secretary General of United Nations Mr. Koffi Annan worked for months to plan, detail and write out a thousands of pages long agreement, continually speaking with both the Turkish and Greek sides of the island, taking their concerns and demands in view and presenting an agreement to both sides.

The agreement calling both sides to make concessions of the islands communities and presenting a win-win scenario for both the Turkish and Greek Cypriot communities on the island, unifying the island in a federation. This peace plan by the UN was set to be voted in independent referendum on both sides of the islan at the same time.

Besides the UN, USA, UK and European Union supported this peace plan, EU even stating that they will like to see the island unified and be admitted into the EU as a whole, and further commenting that if this peace deal does not go thru, they will hesitate to take in any part of the island and start political and economic ties with the Turkish Republic of Northern Cyprus.

In April 2004, both sides of the island went to referendum, with the majority of the Turkish side accepting it and the majority of Greek side rejecting it:

“25 April 2004 -- The United Nations says it will close the office of its peace envoy in Cyprus following the overwhelming rejection by Greek Cypriots of a UN plan to reunify the divided island. Meanwhile, the United States and senior European Union officials are expressing disappointment about the rejection of the plan by the Greek Cypriots.

In a referendum yesterday, more than 75 percent of Greek Cypriot voters voted against the UN plan to end the 30-year division of the island. In a separate vote on the northern side of the island, nearly 65 percent of Turkish Cypriots supported the UN plan. “
http://www.rferl.org/featuresarticle...13BEBF08E.html
http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2004....unitednations
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/europe/3656553.stm
http://www.euractiv.com/en/enlargeme...article-109929

Against this latest development, the Greek side while rejecting the peace plan, got admitted into the EU, on the other hand the political and economic isolation of Turkish Republic of Norhern Cyprus is continuing, with EU not following on their promised words, been recognized only by Turkiye.

Although, recently we are seeing various countries from EU and other geographies establishing political and economic ties with Turkish Republic of Northern Cyprus, with representatives/consulates opened in Turkiye, Azerbaijan, Kirgizistan, USA, UK, EU (Brussels), UAE, Pakistan, Qatar and Italy, paving the way for her international recognition and perhaps in time been a member of the United Nations, despite great protest and boycott by the Greek side.

http://www.kktcb.eu/index.php
http://www.trncinfo.com/
http://www.northcyprus.cc/


Cheers.

[s3kiz]

Turkish army backs Cyprus talks, says no swift troop withdrawal
Agence France-Presse | Mar 31, 2008

NICOSIA: Turkey's army chief on Saturday backed planned peace negotiations to reunify Cyprus, but warned that a withdrawal of Turkish soldiers from the island after any deal would not be swift.

Saying the Turkish military presence was the "guarantee" for peace in Cyprus, General Yasar Buyukanit also said his soldiers would continue to patrol in the vicinity of a new crossing in the heart of capital Nicosia set to be opened next week.

"It is always beneficial to talk. Problems are always solved by talking," Buyukanit said in divided Nicosia when asked about last week's agreement between President Demetris Christofias and Turkish Cypriot leader Mehmet Ali Talat to launch fresh peace talks.

The negotiations, scheduled to start in June, will be the most concrete push to end the 33-year division of Cyprus since 2004, when a UN settlement plan was rejected.

Buyukanit, speaking at the end of a a four-day trip to the self-proclaimed Turkish Republic of Cyprus, urged the leaders to lay out in detail their vision for peace, underlining that he hoped to see a deal based on the sovereignty and equal rights of the TRNC.

"Everybody is talking about a just and lasting peace, but do we all mean the same thing?" he asked. "The authorities need to clearly detail the parameters of a just and lasting peace and explain their views to the public."
Asked whether Turkish troops would withdraw if there is a peace deal, Buyukanit said a pullout would take place only after the army believes such an accord to be sound. "There is no such thing as pulling troops out tomorrow if there is a peace deal today," he said. "The army needs to observe and be fully convinced on how safe Turkish Cypriots are. Only then can this issue be considered."

Turkey, the only country to recognise the TRNC, has stationed about 40,000 troops in northern Cyprus since 1974 when it stormed the island in response to an Athens-engineered Greek Cypriot coup aimed at uniting the island with Greece. It justifies the deployment under 1960 agreements which gave the island independence from Britain and designated Turkey and Greece as guarantors, along with the former colonial power.

Buyukanit also downplayed the significance of a new crossing point at Ledra Street, a major shopping artery in Nicosia, that the Turkish and Cypriot leaders agreed last week to re-open in a gesture of goodwill. The crossing "is not a very great step towards just and lasting peace. It will only be one of many crossing points on the island," Buyukanit said. He underlined that the re-opening of the pedestrian street, blocked off for decades, would not mean a withdrawal of Turkish soldiers stationed inside a military zone near the crossing. "We will, under no condition, budge even a metre from the area we are responsible for," the general said.

Last year, the Greek Cypriots tore down their side of the concrete barrier on the pedestrian street inside the old city's 600-year-old Venetian walls while Turkish Cypriot authorities demolished their side in 2005. But plans to re-open the street -- the sixth crossing between the two communities -- were dogged at the time by Greek Cypriot demands that Turkish soldiers withdraw from the vicinity as a precondition, a demand rebuffed by Turkey and Turkish Cypriots.

Earlier this week, a UN team swept the area for explosives and Greek and Turkish Cypriot crews moved in to remove debris to make room for a paved walk-way. Officials are hoping that the crossing will be opened by the end of next week.
http://www.defencetalk.com/news/publish/wars/Turkish_army_backs_Cyprus_talks_says_no_swift_troo p_withdrawal130015412.php

Cheers.

[eliaslar]

My friend s3kiz your post is very interesting.

I would like to ask you why the north part of the island is still recognised only by Turkey, when on the other hand, the Greek-Cypriot, free, part of the island is not only free but has also became a member of the EU.

Here is a BBC timeline of the events
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/europe/1021835.stm

I would just like to add to your posts the US part in Turkish invasion in the island.
According to these links, which are based on CIA's declassified documents, It seems that the US not only knew about that Turkey was going to invade the island but also that they encouraged it.
http://www.turkishdailynews.com.tr/article.php?enewsid=76969
http://rawstory.com/news/2007/Intelligence_officers_confirm_Kissinger_role_in_06 26.html

Also i would like to say that in 2007 there was a warning from Turkish side against Lebanon and Egypt against an oil exploration deal with Cyprus, something which would have significant economic benefits for all sides.
http://www.iht.com/articles/ap/2007/01/30/europe/EU-GEN-Turkey-Cyprus-Oil.php

Also i would like to ask why Turkey doesn't want Greek-Cypriot side to arm itself, when on the other hand Turkish Army has still big numbers of equipment on the island? Of course Cyprus didn't fear and now it has an army capable to defend the free part of the island, but still Turkey has the great advantage of bringing reinforcements in the island in a very short time.
I think the Greek side has the same need to defend against Turkey, as the Turkish side has the need to defend against a possible Greek threat, if it exists.

Those warnings were especially about the S-300 SAM, which is obviously a defensive system, i don't think someone could claim that a SAM system could be used to bomb Turkish mainland, there was a great deal of warnings and threats from Turkish side against Russia, Greece and Cyprus. Those threats made even the US to warn Turkey
http://query.nytimes.com/gst/fullpage.html?res=9906E0D81638F933A25752C0A9619582 60

And i am wondering, why Turkey fears so much a defensive system. Cyprus don't have an air force, but it has to face the Turkish Air Force.
It is obvious that Turkish Air Force could destroy the main facilities of the island very easy, so with that advantage Turkey could easily put pressure on Cyprus government on every matter.

Cyprus issue i have a strong feeling that will be finally solved in 2008, most recent facts show this, or at least 2008 will be a year that significant things will happen in this martyric island, changes that will benefit both communities.

Finally it is very interesting that you have chosen,by chance (?) to create this topic about Cyprus in the 1st of April, which is the day that in 1955 the EOKA begun the armed campaign against British and finally gained the freedom of the island.

[wyoming cowboy]

It is very interesting that this post has been posted on 1 april, since it signifies the beginning of the revolt against the British empire by Greek cypriots..You mentioned that you wanted to begin the analysis of the problem from the beginning, and i guess being April 1st may give us a clue..Cyprus as you mentioned is and was a very strategic island. The Greek cyps wanted independence from the British empire and to unite with Greece. But the island being situated in such a strategic location the powers ie Nato USA and England could not allow this island complete self determination, so they allowed independence but not enosis. To make a long story short, the Republic of Cyprus saw peace and tranquility in1960,61,62,63 but all of a sudden out of nowhere problems between the two communities Greek and Turk began to arise...Why after almost 4 years of total peace did things change in 1964?..This is the question that needs to be answered. In Cyprus there has always been a very strong communist party even dating back to the colonial rule of the British empire.The participants in AKEL(communist party of cyprus) were both Greek and Turkish cypriots with many of the parties leaders being either. Makarios a religious leader who gained most of his votes from the grass roots peasant community which consequently were mostly communist...urged Makarios toward the nonaligned part of the world community, and away from the West..Makarios would visit and be in audience with the likes of Mao Tse Tung, Fidel Castro, Gandhi, and even Nasser of Egypt. These meetings occured mostly toward the later part of Makarios' term in office around 62-63. The English and Nato were not very pleased with Makarios' actions during those early years, mainly his leanings toward the nonaligned etc. One also needs to be reminded that the British during the EOKA years 55-60 made significant contacts with rebel leaders of the Turkish community in cyprus, they were trying to follow the old colonial adage of divide and conquer, with many promises to these Turk cyp leaders during EOKA of partition or as the turks cyp call it TAKSIM. Well after Makarios' adventures the Brits called up their old contacts within the Turk cyp community and began stirring things up a bit. There are many instances of Brits training and helping to arm people in different Turk villages throughout cyprus. In the last months of 63 two incidents occurred, on the road from Limassol to Nicosia and one at a mixed village in Nicosia. A turk cyp was suspected of taking sniper shots at cars passing below and a Greek cyp was murdered in this mixed village in Nicosia. On the political front the Turk cyp vice president in the Cypriot congress began to use his veto powers unedendingly which in the previous 3.5 years had never used. He would veto a trip to Yugoslavia and Chechoslovakia by Makarios and place a veto on the budget of The Republic of Cyprus claiming that not enough tax revenues were going to the Turk cyps..The veto in the constitution implies that it only be used if the civil rights of the Turk cyp minority were being violated, which they clearly were not. As you can see there is a direct correlation between Makarios' leanings towards the nonaligned part of the world and agitation brought on by the Brits of the Turk cyp leaderships...Consequently Makarios introduced his 13 points of amendment to the constitution and specified that the Turk cyp vice president could not use his veto powers to control the Republic and the 80percent majority Greeks..Through this the Turk cyps decided to leave government, and in fact the Turk cyps were and are still to this day in violation of an agreement they signed in Zurich in 1960.

[s3kiz]

you have chosen,by chance (?) to create this topic about Cyprus in the 1st of April, which is the day that in 1955 the EOKA begun


It is very interesting that this post has been posted on 1 april, since it signifies the beginning of the revolt against the British empire by Greek cypriots [EOKA]

Well guys actually both of you are wrong, today is 2nd of April 2008 here in Turkiye and I opened this thread on 31st of March 2008. Not related to EOKA militia-terror group at all.

Besides I wouldnt do such a jest to EOKA who, alone till 1974 and together with the Greek military forces sent from Greece junta in 1974 to annex Cyprus, killed thousands of civilian Turkish Cypriots, terrorizing them and driving Turks from 30% of their legally owned lands of the island into 3% enclaves, after which occured the Atilla Operation from Turkiye bringing an end to this ethnic cleansing, for 30+ years of peace.




I would like to ask you why the north part of the island is still recognised only by Turkey, when on the other hand, the Greek-Cypriot, free, part of the island is not only free but has also became a member of the EU.

Both difficult and simple to explain, difficult because there are various reasons with long explanations to it, simple because it has already been answered here:
http://www.defencetalk.com/forums/showpost.php?p=138063&postcount=1
http://www.defencetalk.com/forums/showpost.php?p=138065&postcount=2
http://www.defencetalk.com/forums/showpost.php?p=138066&postcount=3
http://www.defencetalk.com/forums/showpost.php?p=138067&postcount=4

We have to realize the amount of false information in the world regarding this issue, just type in a search engine the words “cyprus” and you find thousands of links nearly all Greek/Greek Cypriot, ranging from pure text websites that range from something like this:

“Turkey's occupation of 37% of Cyprus is a protracted legal and political anomaly that the EU is morally obliged to address immediately.
Over one-third of Cyprus's territory remains occupied since the 1974 Turkish invasion. As an act of aggression, the invasion…….”
By Costas Melakopides (Greek author)
ARI N 9/2008 - 10/1/2008 (Spanish Website)
http://www.realinstitutoelcano.org/wps/portal/rielcano_eng/ContentWCM_GLOBAL_CONTEXT=/Elcano_in/Zonas_in/ARI9-2008

And then there is the other spectrum, that I wont link or post pics, they contain colorfull computer graphics of skulls and bones and blood running everywhere and a few black and white photos of the Atilla Operation and dead Greek soldiers, and a picture of a Greek religious leader with his hands tied behind his back been escorted by Turkish soldiers during the Operation Atilla, with captions like “barbaric Turks raped, butchered our people, they killed our priests”. Forgetting the fact that some Greek priests were actually military leaders in the armed terror campaign like that of EOKA against Turks, holding arms ethnically cleansing the Turkish population, and encouraging all Greeks to do so too. Even, the then, President Makarios was also a priest, he was the Greek Cypriot Archbishop at the same time. So it wasnt a matter of killing/butcherin/raping priests etc like claimed. If that was the case the Atilla Operation could have captured the whole of the island and easy could have done the accusations, but it didnt.

Some photos on such Greek sides even have photos of murdered Turkish civilians shown as Greeks, one example is the murdered family of a famous Turkish Cypriot journalist (baby, pre-teen children and wife included) killed by Greeks, but portrayed by these websites as the otherway around.

There is an ocean of WWW links, some supposedly very serious and objective, providing discussion platform for everyone, but established by Greeks, run by Greeks, and mainly inhabited by Greeks, whic is fine but they claim international objectivity. These sites discuss the “missing” Greeks, claimed missing since 1974 Atilla Operation and their photos paraded everywhere, giving numbers and detailing each ones lives in biographies, with pictures and letters of the families still waiting to hear from them, and such human feelings, and stories of families been “ripped away” from their homes in the North and so and so on. Working a very well orchestraded human drama, dont get me wrong sure they suffered and are suffering for losing loved ones and homes, everyone one lost soul to a conflict is one too many.

But all these people forget that the Turkish side suffered as equally if not more due to the Greeks too, and claim what happend on Cyprus as a Turkish agression adn Greek suffering, when in fact it was a Greek agression that resulted in a small war. The Turks were initially unarmed, the army was in the Greek hands, the police was in the Greek hands, and their militias like EOKA, against the Turkish population forced to defend themselves with hunting rifles, been driven from 30% to 3% of the island while losing many, leaving dead and homes. Then came the intervention of Turkish forces under codename Operation Atilla vs Greek mainland junta forces, Greek Cypriot military&police&militia, their objective was to secure some parts of the island equating roughly to the previous land balance before the ethnic cleansing of Turks.

People die in wars like the Greeks did. But they shouldnt die in ethnic cleansing like the Turks did.

Today there is so much one sided (Greek) misinformation and interpretation that even the few and concise Turkish voices are not heard. Most western media fed by Greek mass influence and politics have come to a ripe situation serving Greek manipulations, whenever reporting on the issue they automatically use such words as “invasion” and “occupation” referring to Turks whithout even realizing the historical aspects of the island, and only rarely slightly mentioning a part of this conflicts historical causes, like here:

“Cyprus has been divided along ethnic lines since 1974, when Turkish troops seized its northern third in response to an Athens-engineered Greek Cypriot coup aimed at uniting the Mediterranean island with Greece.”
http://www.forbes.com/markets/feeds/afx/2005/09/22/afx2238433.html

Some media even go complete blind on the fact that the 2004 UN sponsored peace talks and referendum was rejected by the Greek side and accepted by the Turkish side, and when mentioning the unsuccess of the UN plan, portray an image with such phrases like: “With the rejection of the UN Peace Plan, Turkiye is under more pressure to withdraw its military from the divided island which is a EU membet” etc etc Like been blind to the reasons of this conflict werent enough, completely blaming the failure of UN peace talks on the Turkish side, when in fact it voted yes in opposition to no vote from the Greek side.

Strange isnt it what a world we have come to, NWO bosses invading Iraq and causing the deaths of close to 1 million people in 5 years is considered “bringing freedom/democracy”, while the Atilla Operation interviening in the ethnic cleansing of Turks by Greeks and seperating the two sides causing 33 years of peace with (relatively) only couple of thousand people dead is considered a “barbaric invasion” by some. (1 live is important).


But some people are aware of the injustice been done on the island:

European dismay at Cyprus result
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/europe/3657273.stm

Merkel regrets Greek Cyprus' EU membership
http://www.turkishdailynews.com.tr/article.php?enewsid=77749

"Is the EU sincere with its commitments that made to the Northern Cyprus before the referendum on Annan Plan? If called back, the EU made campaigns on Annan Plan lest the result would be ‘no’. However, what happened is the Greek part rejected the Plan with a strong ‘no’, resulting in the failure of the Plan. Afterward, the EU authorities began to explain their regrets about the results and began to display the fact that they are disappointed with the Greek rejection and they are betrayed by the Greek Cypriots.

First of all, Günther Verheugen, previous EU Commissioner for Enlargement, strongly criticized the leadership of the Greek Cypriots and expressed that the EU was cheated.

Similarly, on April 2005, Joost Lagendijk, the Turkish-EU Joint Parliament Commission co-chairman, expressed that the membership of Greek Cypriots was a mistake done by the EU.

French Prime Minister Dominique de Villepin also expressed the situation that it was a serious mistake to guarantee the membership of the Greek Cyprus whatever the results of the UN peace plan would be.

Within this year, German Chancellor Angela Merkel also expressed her uneasiness over the membership of Greek Cyprus in the EU, complaining that a “problematic country” should not have been let in.

EU Investment Bank co-chairman Roth and then European Parliament Liberal Group member Andrew Duff were among the EU authorities drawing attention to the membership of Greek Cyprus as a mistake and to the fact that it complicated a possible solution.

With regard to the aforementioned regret of the EU on the Greek Cyprus’ membership, it requires to assess whether the EU did change its policy or attitude towards the Northern part of the island or not? Did the change work in favor of the Turkish side which voted for a strong ‘yes’ to the Plan as it was encouraged by the EU?

After the referendum, the EU Commission declared its proposal package in accordance with its commitments to the Turkish side, in order to abolish the economic embargo on the Northern Cyprus. In this sense, the EU committed to give 259 million euro to the Northern Cyprus in three years. The proposal also included the provisions to open the way of direct trade with Northern Cyprus. In that sense, goods produced completely in Northern Cyprus could be exported to the EU and there would be no indirect tax on these goods. However, neither direct trade has been fulfilled nor the financial aid was given totally to the Northern Cyprus.

German term-presidency of the EU submitted a procedure related to the direct trade regulation to the Northern Cyprus Ad Hoc Group. But, it did not find a chance to be discussed either because of the membership of the Southern part of the island. The current term-president Portugal also expressed its aim to go on search for a solution on the direct trade regulation. However, the period for the Portuguese term-presidency is about to be over and there seems no chance to find a solution.

Consequently, it is evident that although the EU is in demand for a solution under the UN roof, it has to display a political will alongside good will. Without the EU’s political will, it seems so hard, even not possible, for Turkey to provide opening outs for the issue by its own. A one-sided initiative is not enough for a long-lasting comprehensive conflict. In this perspective, the Union, declaring to be cheated by the Greek Cypriots, should try to take steps more than hiding back of the Greek veto. Otherwise, it would mean to delude both itself and Turkey.

Fatma Yilmaz, ISRO
Center for EU Studies

But most are so embedded in the manipulative perception of events and the political beuracracy on top of been faced with Greek and Greek Cypriot veto threats, that it makes one think, about democracy, human rights and EU.

[s3kiz]

Here is a BBC timeline of the events
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/europe/1021835.stm

Thank you for the “BBC timeline of the events” . Lets look at these events compare them with the events I had detailed at the beginning of this thread and compare for correlation-differences between the two:

1960 - Cyprus gains independence after Greek and Turkish communities reach agreement on a constitution. Treaty of Guarantee gives Britain, Greece and Turkey the right to intervene. Britain retains sovereignty over two military bases.

Yes true, same as whats written in my first post, no differences, albeit less detailed about the President been Greek and Vice-President been Turkish, the 70/30 parlimentary seat division, the constitutional rights etc. In principle nothing different, exactly same.

1963 - Makarios raises Turkish fears by proposing constitutional changes which would abrogate power-sharing arrangements. Inter-communal violence erupts. Turkish side withdraws from power-sharing.

Yes true President (Greek) Makarios did change the constitution stripping the rights the Turkish side received at the declaration of Cyprus Republic and the international treaties. Whats not mentioned here are Makarios’ ambitions to annex the island to Greece like I detailed in my first posts, also here it does not refer to the forced exodus of Turkish population to 3% of the island due to ethnic cleansing by Greek Cypriots, but, merely says, “Inter-communal violence erupts. Turkish side withdraws from power-sharing” which is contradictory even if it was to be true, why would violence erupt if one side(Greek) doesnt try to take away the other sides(Turk) “power-sharing” rights? It also says of the constitutional changes stripping Turks of their rights but later claims Turks withdrew from their rights. This point of BBC contradicts it self, is not detailed skipping the vital details BBC, especially when we have Makarios clearly stating on his intentions to annex the island to Greece during those years:

"Unless this small Turkish community forming part of the Turkish race..is expelled, the duties of the Eoka *5 can never be considered terminated."
(President Makarios' Statement, Circa 1960's) (Negotiating for Survival. p. 7).

"The aim of the Cyprus struggle was not establishment of a republic. These Agreements only laid the foundations."
(President Makarios' Statement, March 13, 1963).

"Union of Cyprus with Greece is an aspiration always cherished within the hearts of all Greek Cypriots. It is impossible to put an end to this aspiration by establishing a republic."
(President Makarios' Statement, London TIMES, April 9, 1963).

So its partially true and fits with the information I give in my first posts here but BBC one is not as detailed and contradictory in it self.

1964 - United Nations peacekeeping force set up. Turkish Cypriots withdraw into defended enclaves.

In correlation with the information I gave in my first posts here, the UN did intervene then and not in 1974 as some would want the world to believe because the problems started in the 1960s. The Turks were forced into “defended enclaves” as BBC says here, but it neglects to say that these enclaves constituted 3% of the islands area, and these people forced into these enclaves were/are legal owners of 30% of the islands lands. Its interesting why BBC doesnt mention this, when Greek Cypriot President Glafcos Clerides does in his writings, because going from 30% to 3% is quite a proof that one is under forced pressure, BBC seems to neglegt that. But the word media stil thinks Turks invaded the island out of pure agression without any reason. So this much of honesty on behalf of BBC is stil commendable.

1974 - Military junta in Greece backs coup against Makarios, who escapes. Within days Turkish troops land in north. Greek Cypriots flee their homes.
Yes the ilitary junta in Greece between 1967-1974 send military force to the island to annex it on 15 July 1974, five days later Turkiye as a guarantor of the Republic of Cyprus constitution of 1960 and humaniteraly responsible for the Turkish Cypriots intervines on the situation in the island in an operation named Atilla, these are all correct.

Now I want to draw your attention to the difference of wordings, before the Turks been forced from 30% to 3% of the island in forced ethnic cleansing was worded as:

“Turkish Cypriots withdraw into defended enclaves”
-a special usage of words that hides the forced “withdrawal”, where Turks were been killed by Greeks to withdraw
-again the selection of words like “defended enclaves” giving an allure that this is the “best thing for Turks, look at how luck and priviladged they are, everything going right fort hem”, with the addition of the feeling the word “defended” creates, creating an atmosphere of “good” and “not-suffering”. The Turks were driven out of their homes from 30% of the island into 3% enclaves to stay alive! Why so much word play?!

Unlike the depiction been placed on the Turkish side, the depiction on the Greek side is short but dramatic “Greek Cypriots flee their homes”. Of course they will, Turkish Army is fighting Greek Army, Greek Cypriot Army&Police&Militia. But the Turkish population went from 30% land to 3% enclaves when there was no Turkish Army involved, double standards in the media.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/europe/1021835.stm




Also i would like to say that in 2007 there was a warning from Turkish side against Lebanon and Egypt against an oil exploration deal with Cyprus,

This was an effort done by the Greek Cypriot government to strengthen her status-quo upper hand and act like she is the representative of the whole island. You must remember that the Republic of Cyprus was build on two equally partners, the Turkish and Greek, Turks claim they were politically stripped off their equal rights and faced ethnic cleansing from Greek agression, (the Greek side recognizes this or not doesnt matter, the proofs are out there for the discerning) No matter what you believe, if one side of a partnership says “I’m out” there is no partnership, so the Turks (due to constitution crisis, ethnic cleansing) said “I’m” out, this results in the ending of Republic of Cyprus, the Greek side cant claim to be whole representetives of the island.

So what does all this mean, the Greek Cypriot efforts to get the backing of Lebanon and Egypt for oil explorations happen to be on the maritime lines off Turkish areas, remember there is no sharing of government (ie partnership), thus there is no Republic of Cyprus, there is a Turkish Republic of Northern Cyprus and a Greek Cyprus (name it whatever you want and give it whatever recognition you want). Politics dont change righteousness, no matter how much one tries, otherwise you have wars, its a natural process.




Also i would like to ask why Turkey doesn't want Greek-Cypriot side to arm itself, when on the other hand Turkish Army has still big numbers of equipment on the island? Of course Cyprus didn't fear and now it has an army capable to defend the free part of the island, but still Turkey has the great advantage of bringing reinforcements in the island in a very short time.
I think the Greek side has the same need to defend against Turkey, as the Turkish side has the need to defend against a possible Greek threat, if it exists.
Because the aim of the Atilla Operation was to bring peace to the island, stop ethnic cleansing of Turks, prevent the islands annexation to Greece by the Greek junta forces, I hardly doubt it was anythng other. Especially you have to remember that Turkish Republic of Northern Cyprus declared independence in 1983, 9 years after the mainland Turkish intervention, if Turkish “occupation” or independence was the aim:

1)Turkish Armed Forces could have taken a great deal more of the island, even all of it.
2)The decleration of Turkish Republic of Norther Cyprus would not have waited for 9 years.

Im certain that the Atilla Operation was only to stop the ethnic cleansing and bring peace to the island, but as time elapsed the many and intricate problems and rejections to peace talks by the Greek side delayed the withdrawal of Turkish Armed Forces, with new peace efforts and new rejections by the Greek side further distancing the poles between both sides.

With the latest “NO” from Greek side to UN Peace Plan in 2004 where Turks said “YES”, and also the unproportianate arming going on the Greek side, further reduced the trusts on Greek intentions. It makes one think why bother trying to reunify, its like bringing together fire and dynamite. Both sides should go their own indvidual way, with the Greek side stop pretending to own the whole island. History and logic says they dont.

@wyoming cowboy:

I read your post yes I know all that, they are one of the many scenarios as to who shot Republic of Cyprus, just like who shot John F. Kennedy. You have to realize that the Republic of Cyprus WAS founded with both its Turkish and Greek populations in equal rights, and that Turkiye, Greece and Britain were guarantor states of its constitunion and sovereignty.

Taksim literaly means “division”, that applied to the Greek side as well prior to the establishment of Repulic of Cyprus, but they could not do that because the orginal aim of the Greek sides to the Republic of Cyprus were with the intention to annex the island as whole to Greece, and to as we see after in our times, they planned way to get the island in thier hands as whole, first by the co-establishment (Turk-Greek) of Republic of Cyprus, then by reducing Turks from political equals to minorities and physically reducing their population and forced exodus into 3% of the island and then joining up with Greece. That was the aim.

Scenarious about Mao Tze, Ghandi, Fidel, Nasser etc etc are just part of the many different disruptive discursive practices (manipulations) made by the Greek side to support the main discursive practices mentioned in the beginning of this thread, to hide their attempted “bank robbery”, during which they got caught. Because neither the military regime in Greece nor the Greek Cypriots stealing the Turkish sides rights and trying to ethnically cleanse them healthily estimated that Turks would actually interfere, downplaying on Turkish military and political capabilities, which surprised them.

I honestly believe with all the bloodshed on the island, the proven ambitions and the continued rejections from the Greek side for a just peace settlement, the two communities should go their own ways, Greek Cypriots joining with Greece, as they had wanted since the creation of Republic of Cyprus which as we can see, was just a charade, and the Turkish side joining Turkiye.

Thats the most logical, fair and wise thing to do, and I dont think nothing else will bring peace that could be as sustainable as the peace that this will bring.

Cheers.

[wyoming cowboy]

you can rant and rave and make up things about what happened in cyprus but if you cannot face the facts then this forum is useless. Nowhere in UN reports are the Greek cyps of cyprus accused of ethnically cleansing Turkcyps. However many resolutions condemning turkey for ethnically cleansing greek cyps in 1974..These enclaves that you mention of Turk cyp consisted of only 35,000 people and were voluntary, out of a population of 111,000 turk cyp..this nonsense from urk propaganda has to end if there will ever be peace

[Atilla [TR]]

you can rant and rave and make up things about what happened in cyprus but if you cannot face the facts then this forum is useless. Nowhere in UN reports are the Greek cyps of cyprus accused of ethnically cleansing Turkcyps. However many resolutions condemning turkey for ethnically cleansing greek cyps in 1974..These enclaves that you mention of Turk cyp consisted of only 35,000 people and were voluntary, out of a population of 111,000 turk cyp..this nonsense from urk propaganda has to end if there will ever be peace


1974 - Military junta in Greece backs coup against Makarios, who escapes. Within days Turkish troops land in north. Greek Cypriots flee their homes.
Yes the ilitary junta in Greece between 1967-1974 send military force to the island to annex it on 15 July 1974, five days later Turkiye as a guarantor of the Republic of Cyprus constitution of 1960 and humaniteraly responsible for the Turkish Cypriots intervines on the situation in the island in an operation named Atilla, these are all correct.


We only attacked Cyprus to defend Turkish rights. You who live in Wyoming some 10 000 km away from Cyprus think you know more about this issue. Exactly where is this Turkish propaganda? You have any evidence from actual people that lived in Cyprus? The Greek Army was planning on taking over the whole island what do you think they would have done to the Turkish muslims, just let them live there, when in the Greek main land Turks cannot even have a organization with the name Turk in it, when in Turkey the Kurds can have there own political party DTP that has links to PKK? Why don't you go back watching Broke Back Mountain.

[eliaslar]

@Atilla [TR]
Why so offensive? Aren't there Cypriots who live in the US just as Turks live there?

Do you have evidence proving that the Greek army was trying to take over the whole island? If such a try was to happen then the next Greek-Turkish war would have happened and not only in Cyprus, such a matter would affect even the mainlands of both countries. Maybe if we take a short look in the map we will see that to transfer the Greek army, in such an amount as to be claimed as an invasion force, would be extremely difficult because Turkey is far more closer to Cyprus than Greece. And i don't think that Turkey would let it happen in the first place.

Maybe we shoudn't forget that in November 1967, after the Kofinou crisis, Turkey threatened Greece with war unless the Greek Army division of about ten thousand men stationed on the island since 1964 was not withdrawn from Cyprus. President Johnson sent Cyrus Vance as his special envoy to the area. Greece, which was ruled since April 1967 by the Junta of the Colonels, submitted to the threat, and agreed with Turkey on the withdrawal of the division, the disbandment of the Cyprus National Guard, and the revision of the mandate of the UN Forces in Cyprus (UNFICYP). Thus leaving the island and the Greek population unprotected and the road free to the Turkish army in its invasion.

After all, Turkish army is the one who occupies the island for so many years, as you claim here protecting the Turkish side. Don't you think that the Greek side would have the same right to protect it's people, who after all comprise the bigest part of the total Cyprus population?

I think s3kiz begun this topic saying
"So, I invite everyone, be they Turk/Greek or anyone, who has interest in this matter, in mutual respect and understanding, to present facts, opinions and ideas about this conflict and how it effets and reflects on the geographies people and also military strategies."

So everyone, no matter where is from have the right to speak and tell his thoughts.

Of course to talk about the muslim minority in Greece belongs to another topic...maybe it would belong to the same topic as the Greek minority in Turkey.

[Atilla [TR]]

Of course to talk about the muslim minority in Greece belongs to another topic...maybe it would belong to the same topic as the Greek minority in Turkey.

Yeah you want to talk about them? They are free to do what ever they want they have there Churches and they can speak what ever they want. Most of them converted to Islam and most live in Trabzon even though there is not to many of them. This is not the same situation of the Turks in Greece.

[eliaslar]

Although out of topic i have to answer you with visiting these links about the Turkish pogrom in 1955.
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Istanbul_Pogrom

and the way Turkey behaves Greek minority according to HRW and other publications
http://home.att.net/~dimostenis/greektr.html

If i remember well there was no pogrom of such a minority as you claim from the Greek side and as one can find with a single google search the muslim minority in Greece already have political rights, also there were muslim members of the parliament.

Also this HRW document
http://www.hrw.org/reports/1999/greece/Greec991-04.htm
states something very interesting that
"many Turks fled Greece, especially Thrace which was under Bulgarian control, during World War II, and did not return at war’s end"
and that
"some of the Turkish speakers were probably ethnic Greek Orthodox who came to Greece from Anatolia as a result of the 1923 population exchange"

And now i would like to ask, the Turks that lived in Thrace, most of them, left because of Bulgarian control and of course went to Turkey and as claimed by HRW they didn't come back, but the Turkish speakers were also Greek Orthodox from Anatolia, as a result today how can Turkey proves that those Turkish speakers aren't the ones HRW is talking about? Who of course have under no circumstances no Turkish roots. Also we may not forget the Pomacs, who have a slav origin even if they speak Turkish.

Also as Turkish media claims "Greece has taken a major step in minoritiy rights. Ankara should not lag behind."
http://www.turkishdailynews.com.tr/article.php?enewsid=66098
And as HRW claims Greek side has made possitive steps
http://www.hrw.org/reports/1999/greece/Greec991-05.htm

Of course this will lead nowhere because you will answer me about the muslims in Greece with other links trying to prove the opposite and this will go on.

[Atilla [TR]]

Although out of topic i have to answer you with visiting these links about the Turkish pogrom in 1955.
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Istanbul_Pogrom

and the way Turkey behaves Greek minority according to HRW and other publications
http://home.att.net/~dimostenis/greektr.html

If i remember well there was no pogrom of such a minority as you claim from the Greek side and as one can find with a single google search the muslim minority in Greece already have political rights, also there were muslim members of the parliament.

Also this HRW document
http://www.hrw.org/reports/1999/greece/Greec991-04.htm
states something very interesting that
"many Turks fled Greece, especially Thrace which was under Bulgarian control, during World War II, and did not return at war’s end"
and that
"some of the Turkish speakers were probably ethnic Greek Orthodox who came to Greece from Anatolia as a result of the 1923 population exchange"

And now i would like to ask, the Turks that lived in Thrace, most of them, left because of Bulgarian control and of course went to Turkey and as claimed by HRW they didn't come back, but the Turkish speakers were also Greek Orthodox from Anatolia, as a result today how can Turkey proves that those Turkish speakers aren't the ones HRW is talking about? Who of course have under no circumstances no Turkish roots. Also we may not forget the Pomacs, who have a slav origin even if they speak Turkish.

Also as Turkish media claims "Greece has taken a major step in minoritiy rights. Ankara should not lag behind."
http://www.turkishdailynews.com.tr/article.php?enewsid=66098
And as HRW claims Greek side has made possitive steps
http://www.hrw.org/reports/1999/greece/Greec991-05.htm

Of course this will lead nowhere because you will answer me about the muslims in Greece with other links trying to prove the opposite and this will go on.

http://www.hrw.org/reports/1999/greece/, and do not say anything about other minorities in Turkey. Kurds this year get 12 billion dollars to help there economy. You do not here the Georgians and the Laz and the Gypsy's complaining, do you? Ok this has to stop it is arguments like this that caused the start of all these problems.

[eliaslar]

I agree with you, we may not talk about such minorities here. Both sides have rights and wrongs, in a lesser or greater amount.

[wyoming cowboy]

;138266']We only attacked Cyprus to defend Turkish rights. You who live in Wyoming some 10 000 km away from Cyprus think you know more about this issue. Exactly where is this Turkish propaganda? You have any evidence from actual people that lived in Cyprus? The Greek Army was planning on taking over the whole island what do you think they would have done to the Turkish muslims, just let them live there, when in the Greek main land Turks cannot even have a organization with the name Turk in it, when in Turkey the Kurds can have there own political party DTP that has links to PKK? Why don't you go back watching Broke Back Mountain.As was said before the problems among the two ethnicities was not as serious as you may want people to believe. The rights of the Turk cyps were never threatened on cyprus, there were a few incidents among these two groups between the years of 64-67, the UN moved in and offered protection to certain Turk cyp villages where terrorists against the Republic of Cyprus were being hidden by the TMT, nevertheless between the years of 67-74 cyprus had no problems therefore the invasion by Turkey and continual occupation has no legitimacy in international law nor any other logic, countless UN resolutions condemn the ethnic cleansing of Cyprus by Turkey. As for who i am whether im in Wyoming or China the facts remain facts...

[wyoming cowboy]

;138266']We only attacked Cyprus to defend Turkish rights. You who live in Wyoming some 10 000 km away from Cyprus think you know more about this issue. Exactly where is this Turkish propaganda? You have any evidence from actual people that lived in Cyprus? The Greek Army was planning on taking over the whole island what do you think they would have done to the Turkish muslims, just let them live there, when in the Greek main land Turks cannot even have a organization with the name Turk in it, when in Turkey the Kurds can have there own political party DTP that has links to PKK? Why don't you go back watching Broke Back Mountain.As was said before the problems among the two ethnicities was not as serious as you may want people to believe. The rights of the Turk cyps were never threatened on cyprus, there were a few incidents among these two groups between the years of 64-67, the UN moved in and offered protection to certain Turk cyp villages where terrorists against the Republic of Cyprus were being hidden by the TMT, nevertheless between the years of 67-74 cyprus had no problems therefore the invasion by Turkey and continual occupation has no legitimacy in international law nor any other logic, countless UN resolutions condemn the ethnic cleansing of Cyprus by Turkey. As for who i am whether im in Wyoming or China the facts remain facts...And for the reasons Turkey attacked were not to protect the Turk cyp population as you may claim for the majority of the Turkcyp population was in the southern part of the island the invasion occured on the northern coast of Cyprus, the reason Turkey invaded were from orders that came from London and the Pentagon..

[Atilla [TR]]

As was said before the problems among the two ethnicities was not as serious as you may want people to believe. The rights of the Turk cyps were never threatened on cyprus, there were a few incidents among these two groups between the years of 64-67, the UN moved in and offered protection to certain Turk cyp villages where terrorists against the Republic of Cyprus were being hidden by the TMT, nevertheless between the years of 67-74 cyprus had no problems therefore the invasion by Turkey and continual occupation has no legitimacy in international law nor any other logic, countless UN resolutions condemn the ethnic cleansing of Cyprus by Turkey. As for who i am whether im in Wyoming or China the facts remain facts...

Can you provide a link to this info please, preferably ones from NGO's? Or is this western media along with Greek and Armenian Propaganda talking again? Why would Turkey invade Cyprus if it was peaceful and the Turks on the Island where ok? And the Pentagon did not give Turkiye the ok to invade they even stopped selling arms to Turkiye.

[wyoming cowboy]

;138289']Can you provide a link to this info please, preferably ones from NGO's? Or is this western media along with Greek and Armenian Propaganda talking again? Why would Turkey invade Cyprus if it was peaceful and the Turks on the Island where ok? And the Pentagon did not give Turkiye the ok to invade they even stopped selling arms to Turkiye.Because you choose to see whatever suits your interest Attilla. Read my first post and you will see the reasoning behind the invasion. Recently declassified information on Kissingers dealings and green light to Turkey to invade are out in the open you only need to Googgle it..Even the second invasion by Turkey on August 74, is specifically given the green light to Turkey and also the logistics in a conversation from Kissinger to his undersecretaty of state Schlisinger...read it and weap for the truth is coming to light. The Turk cyp were not in any danger whatsoever the conflict during the 74 coup was between the junta and the supporters of Makarios no Turk cyp were involved..If you are truly interested in facts go to your local library and look up the newspapers from around the world for this time period. the headlines will undoubtebly read Greek colonels stage coup against makarios and next to that you will see the beginnings of the impeachement of President Nixon...no mention of Turk cyp lives being in danger..

[s3kiz]

Everyone!

I strongly urge from each and everyone of you to respect this thread and its topic when posting here. I request everyone who wants to post here to:

1)Remember the topic is-> Cyprus Conflict: past, present and future;

2)Please only post if what you write is in context to the origins of this conflict, the events of this conflict and future projections of this conflict, in light of human, economic, military strategies;

3)As I requested in the first post on this thread, lets keep it in a mutually respectfull manner, and ster away from “flame-baiting”, no name callings, no rudeness, no “mud-throwing”, no racism, no “heavy” claims without supporting material, but clean, plain, evindence, proof, reasoning and lots of mutual understanding;

4)Lets do a good job and keep it clean here, unlike some other threads that went haywire.


Have you ever read a UN resolution? Be it a Cyprus related one or not, any? Well if you havent, you will now.

I’ll write the very first UN Cyprus related resolution, “UN Resolution 186" (04March1964) and give you an official United Nations link listing ALL of the issued resolutions for Cyprus Conflict. It will take a lot of screen space for me to write them all here, so pls read through them individually.


The very first resolution:
UN Resolution 186 (04March1964)

"The Security Council,
Noting that the present situation with regard to Cyprus is likely to threaten international peace and security and may further deteriorate unless additional measures are promptly taken to maintain peace and to seek out a durable solution,

-Referring to the constitutional crisis created by the Greek sides attempts to make 13 amendments to the (16 August 1960) Constitution of Republic of Cyprus, with eight of these amendments been so fundamental that they were included in the unalterable Basic Articles of the Constitution, safe-guarding Turkish rights. The main objective of the amendments was to put the Turkish Cypriots into the status of minority from the status of co-founder and politically equal partner of the Republic of Cyprus.

"Considering the positions taken by the parties in relation to the Treaties signed at Nicosia on 16 August 1960,"

-Reminding the above mentioned (16 August 1960) Constitution of Republic of Cyprus and the guarantor positions of Turkiye, Greece and UK.

"Having in mind the relevant provisions of the Charter of the United Nations and its Article 2, paragraph 4, which reads: "All Members shall refrain in their international relations from the threat or use of force against the territorial integrity or political independence of any State, or in any other manner inconsistent with the purposes of the United Nations."
1. Calls upon all Member States, in conformity with their obligations under the Charter of the United Nations, to refrain from any action or threat of action to worsen the situation in the sovereign Republic of Cyprus, or to endanger international peace;"

-Reminding the various UN articles about all countries respecting each others territorial integrity and political independence, and asking for the guarantor countries (Turkiye, Greece and UK) and all other UN member states not to act, threat in anyway to worsen the situation in Republic of Cyprus, basically calling for restraint on all sides against actions that may harm and fuel the situation on the island creating a bigger international conflict.

"2. Asks the Government of Cyprus, which has the responsibility for the maintenance and restoration of law and order, to take all additional measures necessary to stop violence and bloodshed in Cyprus;"

-Calling upon both sides, Turkish and Greek communities, that had co-founded the government of Republic of Cyprus, to reimplement the law and order of the (16 August 1960) Constitution (which was been changed by the Greek sides efforts to make 13 amendments, 8 of these been part of the unchangable Basic Articles of Constitution stripping the Turkish side of their rights). And implement security measures to stop the violence and bloodshed, namely the start of ethnically cleansing of Turks, from 30% of their registered lands to enclaves that in time would make up only 3% of the island.

"3. Calls upon the communities in Cyprus and their leaders to act with the utmost restraint;"

-The politically equall co-founders of the Republic of Cyprus, the Turkish and Greek communities of the island, as entrusted in the (16 August 1960) Constitution. Because President (Greek) Archbishop Makarios had already started to fuel this conflict with his efforts to make the Constitutional amendments, stripping the Turkish sides rights away reducing them to the level of “minority” in a country they co-founded.

-Which resulted in the Turkish side taking the issue to the Republic of Cyprus Supreme Constitutional Court. On 25th April 1963 the Court ruled that the amendments were in breach of the Constitution , but nevertheless President Makarios declared that he would ignore his own countrys court ruling, and did ignore it pressing ahead with the amendments. (Cyprus Mail 12.2.63). On 21st May the neutral President of the Court who was a West German citizen resigned.

-If these events werent enough, President Makarios was also adding further fuel to the fire with his domestic and international comments and actions:
"Unless this small Turkish community forming part of the Turkish race..is expelled, the duties of the Eoka can never be considered terminated."
(President Makarios' Statement, Circa 1960's) (Negotiating for Survival. p. 7).

"The aim of the Cyprus struggle was not establishment of a republic. These Agreements only laid the foundations."
(President Makarios' Statement, March 13, 1963).

"Union of Cyprus with Greece is an aspiration always cherished within the hearts of all Greek Cypriots. It is impossible to put an end to this aspiration by establishing a republic."
(President Makarios' Statement, London TIMES, April 9, 1963).

"It is true that the goal of our struggle is to annex Cyprus to Greece."
(President Makarios' Statement, Uusi Soumi of Stockholm, September 1963).

The above events further frustrating the Turkish side, drifting the two communities apart (pls check the dates of the above and below statements:

“The Cyprus Constitution is dead. There is no possibility of the Turkish Community living together with the Greek Community” (Turkish-Cypriot Vice-President, Fazil Kucuk, The Times, 31 December 1963).

“The Constitution of Cyprus no longer exists” (Dr. Fazil Kucuk, The New York Times, 5 January 1964)

“I no longer consider myself the Vice-President of Cyprus because a legitimate government no longer exists in Cyprus” (Dr. Fazil Kucuk Special News Bulletin No. 16, 11 January 1964).

-All these events been the precursor to the ethnic cleansing of Turks been killed and driven out of their registered lands totaling 30% of the island, which they once were the co-administrators of, into enclaves constituting only 3% of the lands and gradually starting their armed resistance in defence against attacks from the Greek Cypriot armed forces including terror groups like EOKA under the Akritas Plan and mainland Greek armed forces sent in 1974by the junta in Greece aiming to annex whole of the island under, resulting in Turkiye launching the Operation Atilla, driving out the Greek junta forces, and creating a safe zone for the Turkish community roughly equaling in size to their legaly owned lands prior to conflict.

"4. Recommends the creation, with the consent of the Government of Cyprus, of a United Nations Peace-Keeping Force in Cyprus. The composition and size of the Force shall be established by the Secretary-General, in consultation with the Governments of Cyprus, Greece, Turkey and the United Kingdom. The commander of the Force shall be appointed by the Secretary-General and report to him. The Secretary-General, who shall keep the Governments providing the Force fully informed, shall report periodically to the Security Council on its operation;

5. Recommends that the function of the Force should be in the interest of preserving international peace and security, to use its best efforts to prevent a recurrence of fighting and, as necessary, to contribute to the maintenance and restoration of law and order and a return to normal conditions;
6. Recommends that the stationing of the Force shall be for a period of three months, all costs pertaining to it being met, in a manner to be agreed upon by them, by the Governments providing the contingents and by the Government of Cyprus. The Secretary-General may also accept voluntary contributions for the purpose;

7. Recommends further that the Secretary-General designate, in agreement with the Government of Cyprus and the Governments of Greece, Turkey and United Kingdom a mediator who shall use his best endeavors with the representatives of the communities and also with the aforesaid four Governments, for the purpose of promoting a peaceful solution and an agreed settlement of the problem confronting Cyprus, in accordance with the Charter of the United Nations, having in mind the well-being of the people as a whole and the preservation of international peace and security. The mediator shall report periodically to the Secretary-General on his efforts;

8. Requests the Secretary-General to provide, from funds of the United Nations, as appropriate, for the remuneration and expenses of the mediator and his staff. "
http://www.un.int/cyprus/scr186.htm

-And thus began the long lasting UN presence on the island.



UN Resolution 649 (12March1990)
“The Security Council "Calls upon the leaders of the two communities to pursue their efforts to reach freely a mutual acceptable solution providing for the establishment of a federation that will be bi-communal as regards the constitutional aspects and bi-zonal as regards the territorial aspects ... and to cooperate, on equal footing, with the Secretary General..."
http://www.un.int/cyprus/scr649.htm

-Another UN resolution calling for both sides to find a mutually acceptable solution, bi-communal, bi-zonal,federative and on equaly footing. Greeks say no, and the last time they said no was in 2004 UN Sponsered Peace Plan referendum.



UN Resolution 1687 (15June2006)
“Urging both sides to avoid any action which could lead to an increase in tension and, in this context, noting with concern sequential developments in the vicinity of Dherinia, the increase in unauthorized construction of building for personal and commercial use in the buffer zone, and developments at certain checkpoints in sector four, including new restrictions on UNFICYP's freedom of movement, and encouraging both sides to engage in consultations with UNFICYP on the demarcation of the buffer zone, and to respect UNFICYP's mandate and operations in the buffer zone, “
http://www.un.int/cyprus/Res1687.htm

-And an excerpt from the latest UN Resolution about Cyprus. Reading the above resolution, I sometimes really worry about what the UN does.



The official “UN Resolutions list on the Cyprus issue”
http://www.un.int/cyprus/resolut.htm



Republic of Cyprus Constitution (16 August 1960)
ICL International Constitutional Law, an organization which archives world constitutions (the below constitution sample is commented to be given to ICL by George Katrougalos, a Greek)
http://www.servat.unibe.ch/law/icl/cy00000_.html


Cheers.

[wyoming cowboy]

Everyone!

I strongly urge from each and everyone of you to respect this thread and its topic when posting here. I request everyone who wants to post here to:

1)Remember the topic is-> Cyprus Conflict: past, present and future;

2)Please only post if what you write is in context to the origins of this conflict, the events of this conflict and future projections of this conflict, in light of human, economic, military strategies;

3)As I requested in the first post on this thread, lets keep it in a mutually respectfull manner, and ster away from “flame-baiting”, no name callings, no rudeness, no “mud-throwing”, no racism, no “heavy” claims without supporting material, but clean, plain, evindence, proof, reasoning and lots of mutual understanding;

4)Lets do a good job and keep it clean here, unlike some other threads that went haywire.


Have you ever read a UN resolution? Be it a Cyprus related one or not, any? Well if you havent, you will now.

I’ll write the very first UN Cyprus related resolution, “UN Resolution 186" (04March1964) and give you an official United Nations link listing ALL of the issued resolutions for Cyprus Conflict. It will take a lot of screen space for me to write them all here, so pls read through them individually.


The very first resolution:
UN Resolution 186 (04March1964)

"The Security Council,
Noting that the present situation with regard to Cyprus is likely to threaten international peace and security and may further deteriorate unless additional measures are promptly taken to maintain peace and to seek out a durable solution,

-Referring to the constitutional crisis created by the Greek sides attempts to make 13 amendments to the (16 August 1960) Constitution of Republic of Cyprus, with eight of these amendments been so fundamental that they were included in the unalterable Basic Articles of the Constitution, safe-guarding Turkish rights. The main objective of the amendments was to put the Turkish Cypriots into the status of minority from the status of co-founder and politically equal partner of the Republic of Cyprus.

"Considering the positions taken by the parties in relation to the Treaties signed at Nicosia on 16 August 1960,"

-Reminding the above mentioned (16 August 1960) Constitution of Republic of Cyprus and the guarantor positions of Turkiye, Greece and UK.

"Having in mind the relevant provisions of the Charter of the United Nations and its Article 2, paragraph 4, which reads: "All Members shall refrain in their international relations from the threat or use of force against the territorial integrity or political independence of any State, or in any other manner inconsistent with the purposes of the United Nations."
1. Calls upon all Member States, in conformity with their obligations under the Charter of the United Nations, to refrain from any action or threat of action to worsen the situation in the sovereign Republic of Cyprus, or to endanger international peace;"

-Reminding the various UN articles about all countries respecting each others territorial integrity and political independence, and asking for the guarantor countries (Turkiye, Greece and UK) and all other UN member states not to act, threat in anyway to worsen the situation in Republic of Cyprus, basically calling for restraint on all sides against actions that may harm and fuel the situation on the island creating a bigger international conflict.

"2. Asks the Government of Cyprus, which has the responsibility for the maintenance and restoration of law and order, to take all additional measures necessary to stop violence and bloodshed in Cyprus;"

-Calling upon both sides, Turkish and Greek communities, that had co-founded the government of Republic of Cyprus, to reimplement the law and order of the (16 August 1960) Constitution (which was been changed by the Greek sides efforts to make 13 amendments, 8 of these been part of the unchangable Basic Articles of Constitution stripping the Turkish side of their rights). And implement security measures to stop the violence and bloodshed, namely the start of ethnically cleansing of Turks, from 30% of their registered lands to enclaves that in time would make up only 3% of the island.

"3. Calls upon the communities in Cyprus and their leaders to act with the utmost restraint;"

-The politically equall co-founders of the Republic of Cyprus, the Turkish and Greek communities of the island, as entrusted in the (16 August 1960) Constitution. Because President (Greek) Archbishop Makarios had already started to fuel this conflict with his efforts to make the Constitutional amendments, stripping the Turkish sides rights away reducing them to the level of “minority” in a country they co-founded.

-Which resulted in the Turkish side taking the issue to the Republic of Cyprus Supreme Constitutional Court. On 25th April 1963 the Court ruled that the amendments were in breach of the Constitution , but nevertheless President Makarios declared that he would ignore his own countrys court ruling, and did ignore it pressing ahead with the amendments. (Cyprus Mail 12.2.63). On 21st May the neutral President of the Court who was a West German citizen resigned.

-If these events werent enough, President Makarios was also adding further fuel to the fire with his domestic and international comments and actions:
"Unless this small Turkish community forming part of the Turkish race..is expelled, the duties of the Eoka can never be considered terminated."
(President Makarios' Statement, Circa 1960's) (Negotiating for Survival. p. 7).

"The aim of the Cyprus struggle was not establishment of a republic. These Agreements only laid the foundations."
(President Makarios' Statement, March 13, 1963).

"Union of Cyprus with Greece is an aspiration always cherished within the hearts of all Greek Cypriots. It is impossible to put an end to this aspiration by establishing a republic."
(President Makarios' Statement, London TIMES, April 9, 1963).

"It is true that the goal of our struggle is to annex Cyprus to Greece."
(President Makarios' Statement, Uusi Soumi of Stockholm, September 1963).

The above events further frustrating the Turkish side, drifting the two communities apart (pls check the dates of the above and below statements:

“The Cyprus Constitution is dead. There is no possibility of the Turkish Community living together with the Greek Community” (Turkish-Cypriot Vice-President, Fazil Kucuk, The Times, 31 December 1963).

“The Constitution of Cyprus no longer exists” (Dr. Fazil Kucuk, The New York Times, 5 January 1964)

“I no longer consider myself the Vice-President of Cyprus because a legitimate government no longer exists in Cyprus” (Dr. Fazil Kucuk Special News Bulletin No. 16, 11 January 1964).

-All these events been the precursor to the ethnic cleansing of Turks been killed and driven out of their registered lands totaling 30% of the island, which they once were the co-administrators of, into enclaves constituting only 3% of the lands and gradually starting their armed resistance in defence against attacks from the Greek Cypriot armed forces including terror groups like EOKA under the Akritas Plan and mainland Greek armed forces sent in 1974by the junta in Greece aiming to annex whole of the island under, resulting in Turkiye launching the Operation Atilla, driving out the Greek junta forces, and creating a safe zone for the Turkish community roughly equaling in size to their legaly owned lands prior to conflict.

"4. Recommends the creation, with the consent of the Government of Cyprus, of a United Nations Peace-Keeping Force in Cyprus. The composition and size of the Force shall be established by the Secretary-General, in consultation with the Governments of Cyprus, Greece, Turkey and the United Kingdom. The commander of the Force shall be appointed by the Secretary-General and report to him. The Secretary-General, who shall keep the Governments providing the Force fully informed, shall report periodically to the Security Council on its operation;

5. Recommends that the function of the Force should be in the interest of preserving international peace and security, to use its best efforts to prevent a recurrence of fighting and, as necessary, to contribute to the maintenance and restoration of law and order and a return to normal conditions;
6. Recommends that the stationing of the Force shall be for a period of three months, all costs pertaining to it being met, in a manner to be agreed upon by them, by the Governments providing the contingents and by the Government of Cyprus. The Secretary-General may also accept voluntary contributions for the purpose;

7. Recommends further that the Secretary-General designate, in agreement with the Government of Cyprus and the Governments of Greece, Turkey and United Kingdom a mediator who shall use his best endeavors with the representatives of the communities and also with the aforesaid four Governments, for the purpose of promoting a peaceful solution and an agreed settlement of the problem confronting Cyprus, in accordance with the Charter of the United Nations, having in mind the well-being of the people as a whole and the preservation of international peace and security. The mediator shall report periodically to the Secretary-General on his efforts;

8. Requests the Secretary-General to provide, from funds of the United Nations, as appropriate, for the remuneration and expenses of the mediator and his staff. "
http://www.un.int/cyprus/scr186.htm

-And thus began the long lasting UN presence on the island.



UN Resolution 649 (12March1990)
“The Security Council "Calls upon the leaders of the two communities to pursue their efforts to reach freely a mutual acceptable solution providing for the establishment of a federation that will be bi-communal as regards the constitutional aspects and bi-zonal as regards the territorial aspects ... and to cooperate, on equal footing, with the Secretary General..."
http://www.un.int/cyprus/scr649.htm

-Another UN resolution calling for both sides to find a mutually acceptable solution, bi-communal, bi-zonal,federative and on equaly footing. Greeks say no, and the last time they said no was in 2004 UN Sponsered Peace Plan referendum.



UN Resolution 1687 (15June2006)
“Urging both sides to avoid any action which could lead to an increase in tension and, in this context, noting with concern sequential developments in the vicinity of Dherinia, the increase in unauthorized construction of building for personal and commercial use in the buffer zone, and developments at certain checkpoints in sector four, including new restrictions on UNFICYP's freedom of movement, and encouraging both sides to engage in consultations with UNFICYP on the demarcation of the buffer zone, and to respect UNFICYP's mandate and operations in the buffer zone, “
http://www.un.int/cyprus/Res1687.htm

-And an excerpt from the latest UN Resolution about Cyprus. Reading the above resolution, I sometimes really worry about what the UN does.



The official “UN Resolutions list on the Cyprus issue”
http://www.un.int/cyprus/resolut.htm



Republic of Cyprus Constitution (16 August 1960)
ICL International Constitutional Law, an organization which archives world constitutions (the below constitution sample is commented to be given to ICL by George Katrougalos, a Greek)
http://www.servat.unibe.ch/law/icl/cy00000_.html


Cheers.Good informative post Attila, if you read through some of those UN resolutions it distinctly specifies that all powers involved have the responsibility to honor the sovereignty of the Republic of Cyprus..this dates from the very first resolution to the latest one. My point is this and im trying to make it short Cyprus was established for both the Greek and the Turkish ethnicities on the island. The island was established in 1960 as a democratic Republic, the Greeks are 80 percent of the population to the Turk 20 percent. With you complaining today that the rights of the Turk cyp were violated with the 13 points of Makarios has no basis because i read through those 13 points and their civil rights were not being violated, the 13 points emphasize a workable smooth government, with all the rights and freedoms to the Turk cyp community on cyprus. Freedom of religion freedom of speech etc etc...i challenge you to find any of the 13 points that took away the Turk cyp civil and human rights..The leaders of the Turk cyp saw this as an opportune time to cause trouble and attempt to destroy the Republic of Cyprus..in having TAKSIM or partition..You cannot make the same case against the Greek cyp for in 1968 election they overwhelmingly voted in Makarios who was running against a candidate who was totally pro enosis makarios received 245,000 votes to this candidates 8,300 votes..but nevertheless after Makarios outlawed EOKA B and imprisoned its members and guaranteed the safety of the Turk cyps the Turk cyp leaders continued to violate the 1960 Zurich agreements in calling for Taksim

[Atilla [TR]]

Good informative post Attila, if you read through some of those UN resolutions it distinctly specifies that all powers involved have the responsibility to honor the sovereignty of the Republic of Cyprus..this dates from the very first resolution to the latest one. My point is this and im trying to make it short Cyprus was established for both the Greek and the Turkish ethnicities on the island. The island was established in 1960 as a democratic Republic, the Greeks are 80 percent of the population to the Turk 20 percent. With you complaining today that the rights of the Turk cyp were violated with the 13 points of Makarios has no basis because i read through those 13 points and their civil rights were not being violated, the 13 points emphasize a workable smooth government, with all the rights and freedoms to the Turk cyp community on cyprus. Freedom of religion freedom of speech etc etc...i challenge you to find any of the 13 points that took away the Turk cyp civil and human rights..The leaders of the Turk cyp saw this as an opportune time to cause trouble and attempt to destroy the Republic of Cyprus..in having TAKSIM or partition..You cannot make the same case against the Greek cyp for in 1968 election they overwhelmingly voted in Makarios who was running against a candidate who was totally pro enosis makarios received 245,000 votes to this candidates 8,300 votes..but nevertheless after Makarios outlawed EOKA B and imprisoned its members and guaranteed the safety of the Turk cyps the Turk cyp leaders continued to violate the 1960 Zurich agreements in calling for Taksim


S3kiz posted that, not me. Quoted Newspaper report:
“In a Greek raid on a small Turkish village near Limassol, 36 people out of a population of 200 were killed. The Greeks said that they had been given orders to kill the inhabitants of the Turkish villages before the Turkish forces arrived.” - Washington Post, 23 July, 1974. You challenged me to find articles from newspapers from that era here you go.

[eliaslar]

About Cyprus issue we may not forget who played the dominant role in United States foreign policy between 1969 and 1977. That man was Henry Kissinger, who said the following quote:

"The Greek people are anarchic and difficult to tame. For this reason we
must strike deep into their cultural roots: Perhaps then we can force
them to conform. I mean, of course, to strike at their language, their
religion, their cultural and historical reserves, so that we can
neutralize their ability to develop, to distinguish themselves, or to
prevail; thereby removing them as an obstacle to our strategically vital
plans in the Balkans, the Mediterranean, and the Middle East."
Henry Kissinger, while addressing a group of Washington, D.C.
businessmen in Sept.1974

Maybe if we take a look in the map of the whole region at that time, we will see that Turkey is the only nation of NATO that has a border with the USSR itself and that made Turkey's position not only important but also strategical and vital for the Alliance.

Also according to the new declassified documents of CIA, as was previously said here again, Kissinger not only knew about Turkish invasion but also approved it and supported it. In such a way we may say that the US supported Turkey's game on the island.

At the same time in Greece the Junta as we know it, changed and a counter coup happened which overthrown Papadopoulos and Ioannides took his place, who acted on US part.

Sponsored by Ioannides, on 15 July 1974 the EOKA-B organisation took power on the island of Cyprus by a military coup, in which Archbishop Makarios III, the Cypriot president, was overthrown. Turkey replied to this intervention by invading Cyprus and occupying, after heavy fighting with the Cypriot and Greek ELDYK Forces the northern part of the Island.

Of course all these was planned to happen, the recent facts (i mean the CIA's documents) show us this.

Also today took place in Cyprus one of the most important things of the years after the invasion. This thing is the opening of Ledra street in Nicosia, which will help the two communities come closer, every person will be able to travel through the territories, something very difficult till now. Maybe solution to Cyprus problem is near and the division of the island is over.

@s3kiz
I also sometimes really worry about what the UN does my friend.

In this resolutions we can see clearly that the UN always wanted the withdrawal of all foreign armies and the cessasion of all foreign interference in Cyprus affairs. Also till today the Turkish army is present in the island and not the Greek, except the Greek ELDYK, which in no way can be compared in numbers and quality of equipment with Turkish army.

"Considers the withdrawal of all occupation forces from the Republic of Cyprus as an essential basis for a speedy and mutually acceptable solution of the Cyprus problem. (37/253, 1983)"

"Reiterates its full support for the sovereignty, independence, territorial integrity, unity and non-alignment of the Republic of Cyprus and calls once again for the cessation of all foreign interference in its affairs. (37/253, 1983)"

"Affirms the right of the Republic of Cyprus and its people to full and effective sovereignty and the control over the entire territory of Cyprus and its natural and other resources and calls upon all states to support and help the Government of the Republic of Cyprus to exercise these rights. (37/253, 1983)"

"Recommends that the Security Council should examine the question of the implementation, within a time-frame, of its relevant resolutions and consider and adopt thereafter, if necessary, a11 appropriate and practical measures under the Charter of the United Nations for ensuring the implementation of the resolutions of the United Nations on Cyprus. (33/15, 1978)"

"Demands the immediate withdrawal of all foreign armed forces and foreign military presence from the Republic of Cyprus. (33/15, 1978 & 34/30, 1979)"

"Reiterating, its full support for the sovereignty, independence, territorial integrity and non-alignment of the Republic of Cyprus, and calling once again for the cessation of all foreign interference in its affairs. (31/12, 1976)"

"Calls once again upon all States to respect the sovereignty, independence, territorial integrity and non-alignment of the Republic of Cyprus and to refrain from all acts and interventions directed against it. (3395 XXX, 1975)"

"Demands the withdrawal without further delay of all foreign armed forces and foreign military presence and personnel from the Republic of Cyprus, and the cessation of all foreign interference in its affairs. (3395 XXX, 1975)"

[s3kiz]

With you complaining today that the rights of the Turk cyp were violated with the 13 points of Makarios has no basis because i read through those 13 points and their civil rights were not being violated, the 13 points emphasize a workable smooth government, with all the rights and freedoms to the Turk cyp community on cyprus. Freedom of religion freedom of speech etc etc...i challenge you to find any of the 13 points that took away the Turk cyp civil and human rights..

13 Amendments proposed by Makarios:

In November 1963 the then President of the Republic, Archbishop Makarios tried to make 13 amendments to the Constitution of Republic of Cyprus which was co-founded by Turkish and Greek communities on equal footing. These amendments although claimed by the Greek side to "smooth the government operations" were infact stripping the Turkish side of her rights and Constitutional (16August1960) equality, of the Republic of Cyprus.

The Turkish side took the issue to the Republic of Cyprus Supreme Constitutional Court. On 25th April 1963 the Court (headed by an independent (non-Turk/Greek/UK as deemed in the constitution) West German citizen) ,ruled that the amendments were in breach of the Constitution , but nevertheless President Makarios declared that he would ignore his own countrys court ruling, and did ignore it pressing ahead with the amendments. (Cyprus Mail 12.2.63). On 21st May the neutral President of the Court who was a West German citizen resigned.

Now lets look at what these amendments were that created the Cyprus Conflict in the 1960s:

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

Even though boths sides veto rights were been removed, the parliament been made up of 70% Greek seats and 30% Turkish seats automatically allowed every law and ruling to be passed against the Turkish sides rights.

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

Given as a "piece of candy" by the Greeks to the Vice-President (Turk) Dr. Fazil Kucuk, so he would not object to the amendments.

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

Removing the election of Turkish leader to be selected by Turkish Members alone, but by whole members, which includes 70% Greek seats against 30% Turkish seats, totally removing the Turkish side from electing their own leadership, giving it to the Greek dominance, altering the co-founding, equal-sovereign rights given in the Constitution.

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

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

Regarding the laws that relate to only one community (Turkish or Greek) and the voting of those laws by that community, removing the Constitution rights to have such laws voted by that community, instead emposing any and every law adopted in the mixed parlimant with 70% Greek and 30% Turkish members (with the Turkish member leader been chosen by 70% Greeks majority).

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

The Constitution gave the rights to perserve and establish seperate community Municipalities, ether Turkish or Greek. The Turkish community tried to do this, but this was changed with the amendment, forcing no such seperate communities, forcing the Greek presence in every municipiality, in violation to the two seperate sovereign communities making up Republic of Cyprus as envisiaged in the Constitution

7)The constitutional provision regarding Courts consisting of Greek Judges to try Greeks and of Turkish Judges to try Turks and of mixed Courts consisting of Greek and Turkish Judges to try cases where the litigants are Greeks and Turks to be abolished.

Completely altering the sovereingty of each communities judicial systems, initially having Turks been tried in Greek courts and later removing Turkish courts.

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

The Police usually responsible for the metropolitan municipalities, and the Gendarmerie for the rural areas where majority of Turks were inhabiting, thus making this change was to reduce the effectiveness of Turkish security forces on the Turkish population and give it to the Greeks. Stripping the Turks of their defenses for the ethnic cleansing we saw later.

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

The Constitution regarding the disadvantage of the Turkish community gave them "upto 40%" but not necessarily 40% share holding of the Republic of Cyprus security forces, the Turkish participation in the security forces of Republic of Cyprus was to be between 20% (their population ration) to 40%, thus balancing out. But the Greek side wanted to change this through the Contstitution, giving the ratios to be changed by the parliament which was to be made up of 70% Greeks and 30% Turks (with the Turkish leader been chosen by the dominance of the 70% Greek vote due! due to previous amendments).

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

Completely removing equality, and turning the Turkish population into a form of minority, neglegting their equaly sovereignty as envisaged in the original Republic of Cyprus.

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

Reducing and removing Turkish members.

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

Removing the communities independent voting on matters about their own respective communities, changing it so to bringing it under the dominance of Greek vote, thus removing the right of Turks from administering their own communities.

13)The Greek Communal Chamber to be abolished.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Z%C3%BCrich_and_London_Agreement

The above amendments, was aimed to remove all the rights the Turkish and Greek independently and collectively communities had received in the 16 August 1960 Constitution on which Republic of Cyprus was found, stripping the Turkish side from been a politically equal and co-sovereign founder of the rebuplic, into a pressuring them into a state of minority under Greek rule, to later ethnically cleanse them and establish the foundations to join the island with Greece.


i challenge you to find any of the 13 points that took away the Turk cyprs civil and human rights
Look above, 13 amendments aimed at oppressing and laying the foundations to ethnically cleans the Turks from the country they were co-founders of, the original Republic of Cyprus.

And I challange you to support your claims and and stop misinterpreting events.

Cheers.

[s3kiz]

if you read through some of those UN resolutions it distinctly specifies that all powers involved have the responsibility to honor the sovereignty of the Republic of Cyprus..this dates from the very first resolution to the latest one.
Very precisely it does as it should, thats the normal thing UN does.

But before you were saying in your posts that the UN resolutions condems Turkiye for its "ethnic cleansing of Greek Cypriots" etc etc like you have made the some of the world believe the "Turks barbarically invaded Cyprus, a free country" etc etc for the last 30 years.

By hiding what this "Cyprus" was;

-the presence of its Turkish community (due to Greek manipulations some in the world thinks Turks started to exist on Cyprus after the 1974 Turkish "invasion"),
-the legal co-ownership of the (original) Republic of Cyprus by this Turkish community (the other partner been the Greek community),
-how the Greek side tried to take that away this,
-the plans of etnically cleansing the island of Turk (Akritas Plan, EOKA, Makarios),
-the resultant ethnic cleansing of the Turks (I will not post/link bloody pics, I want this thread clean)
-the attempt to annex the island to Greece with junta forces from Greece and Greek Cypriot militia in cooperation,

After ALL this the Turkiye, mainland Turks, interviening in Cyprus as a guarantor country in the 16 August 1960 Constitution of Republic of Cyprus, and the Zurich, Nicosia, Lausanne international agreements.

But I'm glad you are now gradually seeing the truth.

I gave you the official:
"UN Resolutions list on the Cyprus issue”
http://www.un.int/cyprus/resolut.htm

To look and read them all. And I also wrote the very first UN Resolution 186 issued on 04 March 1964 and explained it to you in original context, also the last UN Resolution on Cyprus Resolution 1687 issued on 15 June 2006 in post #21 : http://www.defencetalk.com/forums/showpost.php?p=138293&postcount=21

I hope you read all of them, because it reflects and summarises events, showing the various discursive practices and manipulations the Greeks have been doing on the issue of Cyprus Conflict, distorting the issues, clouding what the whole world see, totally different than to what it was/is.

All this is a very good example of millenium old "art-form" of Byzantine/Greek Intrigue, which is a method of "manipulative, devious, twisting of facts" to make a situation favourable to ones self, look it up on search engines, look it up on the thesaurusus.

Yes the UN calls for all sides and all forces present forces on the island to withdraw, refrain from causing and escalating any conflicts, that is true, but this does not change the reasons behind the Cyprus Conflict and the continuation of its risks in our days as detailed in this thread and on this post:

Turkish armed forces could not withdraw from the island, as they are the official guarantor of the island and moral guarantor of the people there, when we saw an ethnic cleansing of Turks (im not going to post bloody pics, thats not the aim of this thread), and officially worded by Greeks/Greek Cypriots:

"Unless this small Turkish community forming part of the Turkish race..is expelled, the duties of the Eoka can never be considered terminated." (President Makarios' Statement, Circa 1960's) (Negotiating for Survival. p. 7).

"The aim of the Cyprus struggle was not establishment of a republic. These Agreements only laid the foundations."
(President Makarios' Statement, March 13, 1963).

"Union of Cyprus with Greece is an aspiration always cherished within the hearts of all Greek Cypriots. It is impossible to put an end to this aspiration by establishing a republic."
(President Makarios' Statement, London TIMES, April 9, 1963).

"It is true that the goal of our struggle is to annex Cyprus to Greece."
(President Makarios' Statement, Uusi Soumi of Stockholm, September 1963).

"Freedom for us means only the integration of this souther outpost of Hellenism into the national entity (Greece).."
(Tasos Papadopoulos' Statement, October 23, 1967).

"The struggle of Cyprus is the struggle of all Hellenism. Cyprus, where the Greek virtue is being tested, is today the place where the Greek history and Greek struggle are continuing..."
(Foreign Minister Spyros Kyprianou's Statement, March 24, 1971).

Even the former President of the Greek side recognizes the complexities and in reference to the falcities the Greek manipulations try to show to the world the presence of Turkish forces as "invasion" , "occupation" has commented that:

"There is no Security Council resolution that recognizes that an invasion took place in Cyprus. The Security Council has not condemned Turkey as an occupationist so far. If we are lead to such a recourse, they will tell us at the Security Council that there was a (Greek and in 1974 a few days before the Turkish intervention) coup in Cyprus, the legal government was overthrown, the constitution was violated (also violated in 1964 with Greek sides attempts, the co-founded Republic of Cyprus had already ceased to exist in 1964 constitutional crisis) and Turkey (AS A GUARANTOR POWER) had the right of intervention. The things that count are arguments, not slogans."
("My Deposition" by Glafcos Clerides [former President of Greek "Cypriot Republic of Cyprus," the new Greek Cyprus not the orginal Republic of Cyprus co-founded by both Turks and Greeks], Vol.3]

The UN has always called on both sides of theisland and involved parties, Turkiye, Greece and UK to:

“The Security Council "Calls upon the leaders of the two communities to pursue their efforts to reach freely a mutual acceptable solution providing for the establishment of a federation that will be bi-communal as regards the constitutional aspects and bi-zonal as regards the territorial aspects ... and to cooperate, on equal footing, with the Secretary General..."
(UN Resolution 649, March 12, 1990).

But the Greek side (Cypriot Greek and Greece) has always objected to a mutual peace, at best sabotaging UN sponsored talks with discursive practices and at worst ethnically cleansing Turks as show in history and as show in recent intentions, even shown by the words of Greek Cypriot government/military leaders:

"Turks are a barbarous people. They are the last barbarians of civilization. A people with violent instincts and a thirst for blood. We rather live with savage animals than the Turks. Until the Turks digest that Cyprus is Greek they can live in this country only as a minority. And our slogan can not be anything else but "best Turk is a dead Turk." The union of Cyprus with Greece is the only democratic solution for the Cyprus problem. No to the talks, no to the federation, Enosis and let channels fill with the flow of blood."
(Excerpt appeared in Philelephteros, November 11, 1990)

"If the Cretan Greeks (given as example because the Cretan Greeks ethnically cleansed the island of its Turkish population since Greek independence) were living in Cyprus today not a Turkish Cypriot would have been in the North.”
(Statement of the Commander of the Greek Cypriot National Guard General Siradakis, Selides Magazine, October 3, 1992).

“I see the fate of Greece and Cyprus as being intertwined. Because what is Cyprus? is it not Greece. I say to the Greeks who come here "The place that you have come to is not a foreign place, it is Greece.'"
(Statement of the Commander of the Greek Cypriot National Guard General Siradakis, Selides Magazine, October 3, 1992).

Because, like as it was before the creation of Turkish-Greek co-founded/equal/sovereign (original) Republic of Cyprus (with the 16 August 1960 Constituion), like as it was with the Greek attempts to change this Constitution stripping the Turkish side of its rights as co-founders/equal/sovereignty, like as it was in the words of Greek leaders early in 1960s openly both to the domestic and international press stating and claiming ambitions of annexing the island and joining with Greece, like as it was with the Greek Akritas Plan detailing the foundations of the ethnic cleansing of Turks by the Greeks, like as it was with the actually ethnic cleansing (I will not post pics or pic links, its out of the aims of this thread), like as it was with the junta in Greece sending forces to the island and Greek Cypriot cooperation to join forces and annex the island, ALL BEFORE the Operation Atilla, Turkish intervention of 24 July 1974:

The Greek sides only aim was to make the island part of Greece and ethnically cleanse the island of its Turkish heritage.

We saw this in history, ethnically cleansing of Turks by Greeks, on Create, Dodecanese, Lemnos islands, west Thrace and we see it in the Cyrpus Conflict all since the Greek independence, in modern times.

This is the reason why all international peace efforts sponsored and run by UN, USA, UK, EU and Turkiye have not been successfull. But the UN still tries time and time after to find a peaceful solution to the island, trying to get both sides to talk, solve problems and at many times propose UN peace Plans calling on for concession on both Turkish and Greek side to make so both sides would have a win-win scenarion. But the Greek side always rejected the peace, even the latest such international peace effort:

“25 April 2004 -- The United Nations says it will close the office of its peace envoy in Cyprus following the overwhelming rejection by Greek Cypriots of a UN plan to reunify the divided island. Meanwhile, the United States and senior European Union officials are expressing disappointment about the rejection of the plan by the Greek Cypriots.

In a referendum yesterday, more than 75 percent of Greek Cypriot voters voted against the UN plan to end the 30-year division of the island. In a separate vote on the northern side of the island, nearly 65 percent of Turkish Cypriots supported the UN plan. “
http://www.rferl.org/featuresarticle...13BEBF08E.html
http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2004....unitednations
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/europe/3656553.stm
http://www.euractiv.com/en/enlargeme...article-109929

So with all this in mind, I think its time that both sides went their own way, mutually accepting each others decisions for their own future.

Whether it be the "Turkish Republic of Cyprus" and "Greek Republic of Cyprus" or respectively joining with their mainland countries, Turkiye and Greece.

This is the only solution that will bring the longest lasting and mutually beneficial justice to the problem on the island.

Cheers.

[s3kiz]

The rising tensions of the early 1960s spurred the formation of paramilitary groups on both sides, and as the constitutional crisis came to a head in 1962-63, both prepared for violence. The Greek Cypriots were better armed and more ideologically driven, and appeared to welcome the crisis---possibly including Makarios's Thirteen Points, which it sets out as a course of action---as a likely provocation to Turkish Cypriots. An expected reaction from the Turkish Cypriot community, either to Makarios's constitutional gambit or some other incident, would in turn set the Greek Cypriot cadres into action. The plan for that action, revealed by a Greek Cypriot newspaper after the fact, was the so-called Akritas Plan, which is reproduced below.

The Akritas Plan:

"The recent public statements of His Beatitude have outlined the course which our national issue will follow. As we have stressed in the past, national struggles are neither judged nor solved from day to day, nor is it possible to fix time limits for the achievement of the various stages of their development. Our national cause must always be examined and judged in the light of the conditions and developments of the moment, and the measures which will be taken, the tactics, and the time of implementing each measure must be determined by the conditions existing at the time, both internationally, and internally. The entire effort is trying and must necessarily pass through various stages, because the factors which influence the final result are many and varied. It is sufficient, however, that all should understand that the

measures which are prescribed now constitute only the first step, one simple stage towards the final and unalterable national objective, i.e., to the full and unfettered exercise of the right of self-determination of the people.

Since the purpose remains unalterable, what remains is to examine the subject of tactics. It is necessary to divide the subject of tactics under two headings, that is: internal tactics and external, since in each case both the presentation and the handling of our cause will be different.

A. External tactics (international).

During the recent stages of our national struggle the Cyprus problem has been presented to diplomatic circles as a demand for the exercise of the right of self-determination by the people of Cyprus. In securing the right of self-determination obstacles have been created by the well-known conditions, the existence of a Turkish minority, by the inter-communal conflict and the attempts to show that co-existence of both communities under one government was impossible. Finally, for many international circles the problem was solved by the London and Zurich Agreements, a solution which was presented as the result of negotiations and agreement between the two sides.

a) Consequently, our first target has been to cultivate internationally the impression that the Cyprus problem has not really been solved an the solution requires revision.

b) Our first objective was our endeavour to be vindicated as the Greek majority and to create the impression that:

(i) The solution given is neither satisfactory not fair;

(ii) The agreement reached was not the result of a free and voluntary acceptance of a compromise of the conflicting views;

(iii) That the revision of the agreements constitutes a compelling necessity for survival, and not an effort of the Greeks to repudiate their signature;

(iv) That the co-existence of the two communities is possible, and

(v) That the strong element on which foreign states ought to rely is the Greek majority and not the Turkish Cypriots.

c) All the above has required very difficult effort, and has been achieved to a satisfactory degree. Most of the foreign representatives have been convinced that the solution given was neither fair nor satisfactory, that it was signed under pressure and without real negotiations and that it was imposed under various threats. It is significant argument that the solution achieved has not been ratified by the people, because our leadership, acting wisely, avoided calling the people to ratify it by a plebiscite, which the people, in the 1959 spirit, would have done if called upon.

Generally, it has been established that the administration of Cyprus up to now has been carried out by the Greeks and that the Turks have confined themselves to a negative role.

d) Second objective. The first stage having been completed, we mus programme the second stage of our activities and objectives on the international level. These objectives in general can be outlined as follows:

(i) The Greek efforts are directed towards removing unreasonable and unfair provisions of administration and not to oppress the Turkish Cypriots;

(ii) The removal of these oppressive provisions must take place now because tomorrow it will be too late;

(iii) The removal of these provisions, despite the fact that this is reasonable and necessary, because of the unreasonable attitude of the Turks is not possible bv agreement, and therefore unilateral action is justified;

(iv) The issue of revision is an internal affair of the Cypriots and does not give the right of military or other intervention;

(v) The proposed amendments are reasonable, just, and safeguard the reasonable rights of the minority.

e) Today it has been generally demonstrated that the international climate is against every type of oppression and, more specifically, against the oppression of minorities. The Turks have already succeeded in persuading international opinion that union of Cyprus with Greece amounts to an attempt to enslave them. Further, it is estimated that we have better chances of succeeding in our efforts to influence international public opinion in our favour if we present our demand, as we did during the struggle, as a demand to exercise the right of self-determination, rather than as a demand for union with Greece (Enosis). In order, however, to secure the exercise of complete and free self-determination, we must get free of all those provisions of the constitution and of the agreements (Treaty of Guarantee, Treaty of Alliance) which prevent the free and unfettered expression and implementation of the wishes of our people and which create dangers of external intervention. It is for this reason that the first target of attack has been the Treaty of Guarantee, which was the first that was stated to be no longer recognised by the Greek Cypriots.

When this is achieved no legal or moral power can prevent us from deciding our future alone and freely and exercising the right of self-determination by a plebiscite.

From the above, the conclusion can be drawn that for the success of our plan a chain of actions is needed, each of which is necessary, otherwise, future actions will remain legally unjustified and politically unachieved, while at the same time we will expose our people and the country to serious consequences. The actions to be taken can be summed up as follows:

a) Amendment of the negative elements of the agreements and parallel abandonment of the Treaties of Guarantee and Alliance. This step is necessary because the need for amendments of the negative aspects of the treaties is generally accepted internationally and is considered justified (we can even justify unilateral action), while at the same time intervention from outside to prevent us amending them is unjustified and inapplicable;

b) As a result of our above actions, the Treaty of Guarantee (right of unilateral intervention) becomes legally and substantively inapplicable;

c) The people, once Cyprus is not bound by the restrictions of the Treaties of Guarantee and Alliance regarding the exercise of the right of self-determination, will be able to give expression to and implement their desire.

d) Legal confrontation by the forces of State of every internal or external intervention.

It is therefore obvious that if we hope to have any chance of success internationally in our above actions, we cannot and must not reveal or declare the various stages of the struggle before the previous one is completed. For instance, if it is accepted that the above four stages are necessary, then it is unthinkable to speak of amendments in stage (a) if stage (d) is revealed. How can it be possible to aim at the amendment of the negative aspects of the constitution by arguing that this is necessary for the functioning of the State if stage (d) is revealed?

The above relate to targets, aims and tactics in the international field. And now on the internal front:

B. Internal Front.

1. The only danger which could be described as insurmountable is the possibility of external intervention, by force, not so much because of the material damage, nor because of the danger itself (which, in the last analysis, it is possible for us to deal with partly or totally by force), but mainly because of the possible political consequences. Intervention is threatened or implemented before stage (c), then such intervention would be legally debatable, if not justified. This fact has a lot of weight both internationally and in the United Nations.

From the history of many recent instances we have learnt that in not a single case of intervention, whether legally justified or not, has either the United Nations or any other power succeeded in evicting the invader without serious concessions detrimental to the victim. Even in the case of the Israeli attack against Suez, which was condemned by almost all nations, and on which Soviet intervention was threatened, Israel withdrew, but received as a concession the port of Eilat on the Red Sea. Naturally, more serious dangers exist for Cyprus.

If, on the other hand, we consider and justify our action under (a) above well, on the one hand, intervention is not justified and, on the other, it cannot be carried out before consultations between the guarantors Greece, Turkey and the UK. It is at this stage of consultations (before intervention) that we need international support. We shall have it if the proposed amendments by us appear reasonable and justifiable.

Hence, the first objective is to avoid intervention by the choice of the amendments we would request in the first stage.

Tactics: We shall attempt to justify unilateral action for constitutional amendments once the efforts for a common agreement are excluded. As this stage the provisions in (ii) and (in) are applicable in parallel.

2. It is obvious that in order to justify intervention, a more serious reason must exist and a more immediate danger than a simple constitutional amendment.

Such a reason could be an immediate declaration of Enosis before stages (a) - (c) or serious inter-communal violence which would be presented as massacres of the Turks.

Reason (a) has already been dealt with in the first part and, consequently, it remains only to consider the danger of inter-communal violence. Since we do not intend, without provocation, to attack or kill Turks, the possibility remains that the Turkish Cypriots, as soon as we proceed to the unilateral amendment of any article of the constitution,

will react instinctively, creating incidents and clashes or stage, under orders, killings, atrocities or bomb attacks on Turks, in order to create the impression that the Greeks have indeed attacked the Turks, in which case intervention would be justified, for their protection.

Tactics. Our actions for constitutional amendments will be in the open and we will always appear ready for peaceful negotiations. Our actions will not be of a provocative or violent nature.

Should clashes occur, they will be dealt with in the initial stages legally by the legally established security forces, in accordance with a plan. All actions will be clothed in legal form.

3. Before the right of unilateral amendments of the constitution is established, decisions and actions which require positive violent acts, such as, for example, the use of force to unify the separate municipalities, must be avoided. Such a decision compels the Government to intervene by force to bring about the unification of municipal properties, which will probably compel the Turks to react violently. On the contrary, it is easier for us, using legal methods, to amend, for instance, the provision of the 70 to 30 ratio in the public service, when it is the Turks who will have to take positive violent action, while for us this procedure will not amount to action, but to refusal to act (to implement).

The same applies to the issue of the separate majorities with regard to taxation legislation.

These measures have already been considered and a series of similar measures have been chosen for implementation. Once our right of unilateral amendments to the constitution is established de facto by such actions, then we shall be able to advance using our judgment and our strength more decidedly.

4. It is, however, naive to believe that it is possible to proceed to substantive acts of amendment of the constitution, as a first step of our general plan, as has been described above, without the Turks at tempting to create or to stage violent clashes. For this reason, the existence of our organisation is an imperative necessity because:

a) In the event of instinctive violent Turkish reactions, if our counter-attacks are not immediate, we run the risk effacing panic in the Greeks in the towns and thus losing substantial vital areas, while, on the other hand, an immediate show of our strength may bring the Turks to their senses and confine their actions to sporadic insignificant acts, and

b) In the event of a planned or staged Turkish attack, it is imperative to overcome it by force in the shortest possible time, because if we succeed in gaining command of the situation (in one or two days), no outside, intervention would be either justified or possible.

c) In either of the above cases, effective use of force in dealing with the Turks will facilitate to a great extent our subsequent actions for further amendments. It would then be possible for unilateral amendments to be made, without any Turkish reaction, because they will now that their reaction will be weak or seriously harmful for their community, and

d) In the event of the clashes becoming more general or general we must be ready to proceed with the actions described in (a) to (b), including the immediate declaration of Enosis, because then there would be no reason to wait nor room for diplomatic action.

5. At no stage should we neglect the need to enlighten, and to face the propaganda and the reactions of those who cannot or should not know our plans. It has been shown that our struggle must pass through four stages and that we must not reveal publicly and at improper times our plans and intentions. Complete secrecy is more than a national duty.

.....etc etc etc.....(the links at the bottom read it all)

THE LOSS OF ANY DOCUMENT ON THE ABOVE AMOUNTS TO TREASON AGAINST THE NATION.

No act can damage our struggle as vitally and decisively as the revealing of the present document or its publication by our opponents. With the exception of word-of-mouth briefing, all our other actions, i.e., publications in the Press, resolutions, etc., must be very restrained and no mention of the above should be made. Similarly, in public speeches and gatherings, only responsible persons may make, under the personal responsibility of the Leader or Deputy Leaders, references in general terms to the plan. They must also have the authorisation of either the Leader or the Deputy Leader who must approve the text.

ON NO ACCOUNT ARE REFERENCES IN THE PRESS OR ANY OTHER PUBLICATION PERMITTED.

Tactics. Complete briefing of our people and of the public by word of mouth. Publicly we shall endeavour to appear as moderates. Projection of or reference to our plans in the Press or in writing is strictly prohibited. Officials and other responsible persons will continue to brief and to raise the morale and the desire for the struggle of our people, but such briefing excludes making our plans public knowledge by the Press or otherwise.

NOTES: This document will be destroyed by fire on the personal responsibility of the Leader and the Deputy Leader in the presence of all the members of the General Staff within 10 days from its receipt. Copies or part copies are prohibited: members of the staff of the Office of the Deputy Leader may have copies on the personal responsibility of the Leader, but may not remove them from the Office of the Deputy Leader.

The Leader AKRITAS"
http://www.cyprus-conflict.net/akritas_plan.htm


Cheers.

[s3kiz]

"Everything you need to know about the Akritas plan"

By Loucas Charalambous - Cyprus Mail, April 17, 2005
(Greek Cypriot Journalist and Newspaper)

"The MOST important document there is about the Cyprus problem is the ‘Akritas’ plan. It is incontrovertible testimony as to how the Cyprus problem was created in the form it has had for the last 42 years. Nobody should be allowed to talk about the Cyprus problem if he has not read the ‘Akritas’ plan.

Of course, most Greek Cypriots are completely in the dark about the history of their country’s troubles, something which constantly pushes them into making new mistakes. I would bet my life that among the hundreds of clueless and uneducated characters who appear in the media every day as journalists – supposedly to inform the public – you will not find 10 who would have read this document, which is the key to understanding the Cyprus problem. This bitter truth alone explains why we Greek Cypriots are rooted to a primitive level of politics.

In reality, the Cyprus problem was brought into being by this idiotic and nationally catastrophic plan. A plan, which, in Demetris Christofias’ phraseology, would have been describe as treasonous. It is a glowing monument of political stupidity and irresponsibility. The very same man who had signed the Treaty of Establishment for this state and his ministers, as soon as this state came into being, began plotting its dissolution. And for this purpose they set up an illegal organisation. Only in the minds of a Makarios, a Papadopoulos, a Yiorkadjis, a Kyprianou and a Lyssarides could such paranoid politics have found fertile ground.

The gist of this insane plan is included in the following few lines:

Stage 1: Create of the impression among international public opinion, that the Cyprus issue had not been solved correctly and condemn of the Treaty of Guarantee, “the first target of our attack”."

-Referring to the Greek attempt to change the Constitution of 16 August 1960 and change the co-founded (original) Republic of Cyprus, stripping the rights of Turkish Cypriots, paving the way for ethnic cleansing of them, and annexation of the island to Greece.

"Stage 2: Seek amendment of negative elements of the agreements by all means. “We can even justify unilateral action.”"

-Creation of frictions and creating causes for the Greek side to make it self look right for the changes it wanted to do to the agreements: Constitution, international treaties etc, that gave the Greeks and Turks equal footing and co-founding of (original) Republic of Cyprus, these are termed "negative elements" to be changed by "unilateral action" = ethnic cleansing of Turks by Greeks.

"Stage 3: “Following the above action, the Treaty of Guarantee (right of interventions) is rendered legally and substantively unenforceable”.

-Completely breach the 16 August 1960 Constitution of the (original) Republic of Cyprus, and its relative international treaties.

Stage 4: “With Cyprus freed (from the treaties of Alliance and Guarantee) the people would be enabled to express and implement their desire.”

- Read "Freed from the 16 August 1960 treaties and international treaties, giving Turkish side co-foundation/political/human rights."

Stage 5: “Lawful confrontation by the forces of the state (police and friendly military troops) of any intervention from within or from outside because then we would be completely independent.”

-Turning the once peacefull island into a "Greek-Fortress".

This plan was not put together by people who had escaped from a mental hospital, as some may think. Its writers made it obvious that they knew very well they were playing with fire. The only parts of the document which are written in block capitals are those informing the recipients that leaking of it was tantamount to “high treason” and urging members of the organisation of their obligation to “destroy by fire”, once it had been read. They were obviously concerned that the Turks might have got wind of it.

This was the great plan, with which Mr Papadopoulos – the deputy chief of Akritas – and his fellow-fighters destroyed the (original) Cyprus Republic....The achievement of Papadopoulos’ and his organisation’s national activities was truly impressive."



Cheers.

[eliaslar]

I would like to ask Turkey always see ethnic cleansings of other countries on Turks?
I would also like to ask our Turkish friends. Has Turkey commited an ethnic cleansing on other minorities leaving in Turkey?

Of course it's Turkey's right to defend the Turkish and Muslim (as they are seen as Turkish by Turkey) speaking minorities, who apparently are remnants of the Ottoman empire which ruled the Balkans for many years. But does it have the right to call everything an ethnic cleansing?

Maybe our Turkish friends can give us an answer if there were any Turkish attrocities on Greek side in Cyprus, during their campaign or before it.

Also Turkey has a certain and maybe one sided way to see things, for more information i would like to link everyone who is interested in the threads
Russia vs Azerbaijan
http://www.defencetalk.com/forums/showthread.php?t=7365&page=4
and Balance of Power
http://www.defencetalk.com/forums/showthread.php?t=7459

[s3kiz]

Thank you for the above post eliaslar.

Providing the links to Russia vs Azerbaijan and Balance of Power threads was a good idea, much appreciated.

They show the existance and ethnic cleaning Turks are going through in Greece even in 2008. Its interesting how you claim the non existance of Turkish minority in Greece even in this above post you made and giving links to those two threads which basicly show this fact too, with many facts there, even with links to the European Court of Human Rights ruling of 31 March 2008 as evidence.

But I'll put aside your blatant "interpretational skills" and ask you to, please not try to sabotage this thread with "mud trowing" tactics and off topic (factual and fictional) claims like "didnt Turks do this?", "didnt Turks do that?" kind of an approach.

Many can/do bring past/present facts of "Greeks did this", "Greeks doing that" too in negative context, with evidence and proof, but this thread is not a "pissing contest" so to say, lets stay on topic.

So, the level and scope of this thread, and DefenceTalk in general is not about that, and please dont turn it into that.

Dont make true what Loucas Charalambous of Cyprus Mail newspaper, said on his April 17 2005 dated news article, I posted above:

"....we Greek (Cypriots) are rooted to a primitive level of politics."

Lets continue on here with discussing solely matters of the "Cyprus Conflict: past, present and future".

In context of its origins of conflict, the events of this conflict and future projections of this conflict, in light of human, economic, military strategies and issues.

Because:

1)You cant solve problems when its bundled up, when there is "mud-throwing" to this effect, it will not be fruitfull to solve problems, such approach will only imbed existing ones and create newer problems;

2)I dont want this thread CLOSED due to flaming caused by such sabotage that is bound to create a flaming contest.

This is a discussion thread solely on the Cyprus Conflict, for people to read, learn, discuss mutually all varying opinions and facts related to this conflict in mutual respect and historic factuality for all the future years of DefenceTalk.

Thats what this place is, lets respect it.

And work for peace even if we disagree.

Cheers.

[wyoming cowboy]

;138314']S3kiz posted that, not me. Quoted Newspaper report:
- Washington Post, 23 July, 1974. You challenged me to find articles from newspapers from that era here you go.The date of the article is july 23 1974, three days after the invasion of cyprus by Turkey...A war was begun by Turkey and this would follow with thousands of civilians being killed from both sides...The coup started on the 15th of july 1974..until the 19th of july 1974...

[eliaslar]

I must thank you dear s3kiz because in the threads i linked they are showing both sides of view, not only Turkey's side.

Also i must inform you that the reason i made the questions, was to learn your point of view about these subjects, but as i see you may not want to answer and on the contrary your phrasal attack is obvious.

Your side mentioned the words "ethnic cleansing", which is a very "heavy" phrase with actual meanings and clear messages. It has the same meaning with genocide i think.

[eliaslar]

About Cyprus problem now

It is important to realize that Turkey has always planned the invasion of Cyprus and events prior to 1974 just served as a pretext.

Taxim, (partition in Turkish) of the island was always in Turkey's plans. In 1956 the Turkish Cypriot leader F. Kutchuck submitted on a map Taxim proposals dividing Cyprus to North and South (Hitchens "Cyprus: Hostage to History").

In 1974 the Turkish troops divided the island to north and south deviating from the 1956 plan only in minor details. It is therefore clear that the 1974 invasion was a part of a plan and not the result of any actions of the Greek-Cypriots in the sixties.

The Turkish Cypriot leader Denktash agreed when he stated: "Even if the Turkish-Cypriots did not exist, Turkey would not have left Cyprus to Greece" ( Turkish newspaper "Milliyet" 7/23/1985).

Very interesting what Mr Denktash said.

Here is a whole list of Turkish violations in Cyprus
http://www.kypros.org/Cyprus_Problem/human_rights.html

[s3kiz]

Atilla [TR] wrote:


"You challenged me to find articles from newspapers from that era here you go.”

“In a Greek raid on a small Turkish village near Limassol, 36 people out of a population of 200 were killed. The Greeks said that they had been given orders to kill the inhabitants of the Turkish villages before the Turkish forces arrived.”
Quoted Newspaper report from Washington Post, 23 July, 1974."


The date of the article is july 23 1974, three days after the invasion of cyprus by Turkey...A war was begun by Turkey and this would follow with thousands of civilians being killed from both sides...The coup started on the 15th of july 1974..until the 19th of july 1974...

wyoming cowboy as an ethnic Greek living in USA, why are you trying to twist what Atilla [TR] is saying, he was referring to the Greeks actions of ethnically cleansing the Turks on the island of Cyprus since the 1960s.

Yes the excerpt of the news article of Washington Post provided by him is dated 23 July 1974 and the date of Greek military sent from coup in Greece on 15 July 1974, and the internationaly legal Turkish intervention is on 20 July 1974 (as Turkiye was a guarantor state of 16 August 1960 Consitution of [original] Republic of Cyprus, pls follow the thread from the start full of evidence) to stop this ethnic cleansing and the attempted genocide of Turks operated by Greeks.

Because the date of that Washintong Post article surpasses these events does not hide the events that occured between 1960 and 1974, and you cant hide this with such a simple attempt at doing so.

I mean;

-the Byzantine/Greek Intrigue, an “art-form” of “manipulating, deviously twisting the perception of things” to suits ones interests as it has been going on for some millenium in history, and taking its place in modern day politics and international affairs (as detailed in many thesaurus),

and,

-the situation of "....we Greek (Cypriots) are rooted to a primitive level of politics." As detailed in a Greek newspaper in an article outlining the Greek Akritas plan of 1960s setting out to first strip the co-founder/political equality rights of Turkish side as owners of the (original) Republic of Cyprus and then ethnically cleansing and attempting genocide on them, written by Loucas Charalambous of Cyprus Mail on his April 17 2005

Does not give you the right to hide behind the date of the Washington Post news article Atilla [TR] was referring to. This is a malicious attempt to hide the realities of the Cyprus conflict and hide the ethnic cleansing of Turks, and the attempted denocide on them by Greeks.

There are innumerous international news articles and eyewitnesses of the events since 1960 that prove this ambition. Just because I have made it a principle to keep this thread on intellectual and factual basis, does not mean there arent any evidence of the ethnic cleansing of the islands Turkish population.

This is a conflict that originated in Greek attempts to first politically cleanse the Turkish side of their rights as given in the 16 August 1960 Constitution of (original) Republic of Cyprus of which they were co-founders of, and later the ethnic cleansing and attempted genocide on them by the Greek side.

As a result of this conflict everyone suffered, whether they are Turk or Greek, amoung other nationalities. But to solve a conflict you need to go to its origins and events that escalated it, instead on swimming on the periphery and bringing up surficial arguments like you have.

Please, be more decerning if its peace that you want.
(This goes for all participating on this thread.)

Cheers.

[s3kiz]

Part 1/3

Attempted Genocide and Ethnic Cleansing in Cyprus
By Michael Stephen, former British Parliamentarian (1992-97)

The assertion by Mr. Christides (May 10, 1999) that there was no ethnic cleansing or attempted genocide of Turkish Cypriots by Greek Cypriots is ridiculous. Until influential Greek Cypriots come to terms with the appalling behavior of their community toward the smaller Turkish Cypriot community and stop trying to persuade themselves and the world that each side was as much to blame as the other, there will be no reconciliation in Cyprus.
What did George Ball and Sir Alec Douglas say about the intentions of Archbishop Makarios vis a vis the Turkish Cypriots?

In his memoirs, American Undersecretary of State George Ball said: "Makarios's central interest was to block off Turkish intervention so that he and his Greek Cypriots could go on happily massacring Turkish Cypriots. Obviously we would never permit that. "

The fact is, however, that neither the United Nations, nor anyone, other than Turkey ever took effective action to prevent it.

On Feb. 17, 1964 the Washington Post reported that "Greek Cypriot fanatics appear bent on a policy of genocide."

Former British Prime Minister Sir Alec Douglas-Home said, "I was convinced that if Archbishop Makarios could not bring himself to treat the Turkish Cypriots as human beings he was inviting the invasion and partition of the island."

On July 28, 1960 Makarios, the Greek Cypriot president, said: "The independence agreements do not form the goal they are the present and not the future. The Greek Cypriot people will continue their national cause and shape their future in accordance with THEIR will."

In a speech on Sept. 4, 1962 at Panayia Makarios said, "Until this Turkish community forming part of the Turkish race that has been the terrible enemy of Hellenism is expelled, the duty of the heroes of EOKA can never be considered terminated.

The Constitutional Coup
In November 1963 the Greek Cypriots demanded the abolition of no less than eight of the basic articles that had been included in the 1960 agreement for the protection of the Turkish Cypriots. The Turkish Cypriots, naturally, refused to agree.

The aim of the Greek Cypriots was to reduce the Turkish Cypriot people to the status of a mere minority, wholly subject to the control of the Greek Cypriots, pending ultimate destruction or expulsion of the Turkish Cypriots from the island.

"When the Turkish Cypriots objected to the amendment of the Constitution, Makarios put his plan into effect, and the Greek Cypriot attack began in December 1963," wrote Lt. Gen. George Karayiannis of The Greek Cypriot militia ("Ethnikos Kiryx" 15.6.65). The general was referring to the notorious "Akritas" plan, which was the blueprint for the annihilation of the Turkish Cypriots and the annexation of the island to Greece.

Events leading to the sending of the UN Peace-Keeping Force to the island
On Christmas Eve 1963 the Greek Cypriot militia attacked Turkish Cypriot communities across the island. Large numbers of men, women, and children were killed and 270 mosques, shrines and other places of worship were desecrated.

On Dec. 28, 1963, the Daily Express carried the following report from Cyprus: "We went tonight into the sealed-off Turkish Cypriot quarter of Nicosia in which 200 to 300 people had been slaughtered in the last five days. We were the first Western reporters there, and we have seen sights too frightful to be described in print. Horror was so extreme that the people seemed stunned beyond tears."

On Dec. 31, 1963, The Guardian reported: "It is nonsense to claim, as the Greek Cypriots do, that all casualties were caused by fighting between armed men of both sides. On Christmas Eve many Turkish Cypriot people were brutally attacked and murdered in their suburban homes, including the wife and children of a doctor-allegedly by a group of 40 men, many in army boots and greatcoats." Although the Turkish Cypriots fought back as best they could and killed some militia, there were no massacres of Greek Cypriot civilians.

On Jan. 1, 1964, the Daily Herald reported: "When I came across the Turkish Cypriot homes they were an appalling sight. Apart from the walls they just did not exist. I doubt if a napalm attack could have created more devastation. Under roofs springs, children's cots, and gray ashes of what had once been tables, chairs and wardrobes. In the neighboring village of Ayios Vassilios I counted 16 wrecked and burned out homes. They were all Turkish Cypriot's. In neither village did I find a scrap of damage to any Greek Cypriot house."

On Jan. 2, 1964, the Daily Telegraph wrote: "The Greek Cypriot community should not assume that the British military presence can or should secure them against Turkish intervention if they persecute the Turkish Cypriots. We must not be a shelter for double-crossers."

On Jan. 12, 1964, the British High Commission in Nicosia wrote in a telegram to London: "The Greek [Cypriot] police are led by extremist who provoked the fighting and deliberately engaged in atrocities. They have recruited into their ranks as 'special constables' gun-happy young thugs. They threaten to try and punish any Turkish Cypriot police who wishes to return to the Cyprus Government... Makarios assured Sir Arthur Clark that there will be no attack. His assurance is as worthless as previous assurances have proved."

On Jan. 14, 1964, the Daily Telegraph reported that the "Turkish Cypriot inhabitants of Ayios Vassilios had been massacred on Dec. 26, 1963" and reported their exhumation from a mass grave in the presence of the Red Cross.

A further massacre of Turkish Cypriots, at Limassol, was reported by The Observer on Feb. 16, 1964; and there were many more.

On Feb. 6, 1964, a British patrol found armed Greek Cypriot police attacking the Turkish Cypriots of Ayios Sozomenos. They were unable to stop the attack.

On Feb. 13, 1964, the Greeks and Greek Cypriots attacked the Turkish Cypriot quarter of Limassol with tanks, killing 16 and injuring 35.

On Feb. 15, 1964, the Daily Telegraph reported: "It is a real military operation which the Greek Cypriots launched against the 6,000 inhabitants of the Turkish Cypriot quarter yesterday morning. A spokesman for the Greek Cypriot government has recognized this officially. It is hard to conceive how Greek and Turkish Cypriots may seriously contemplate working together after all that has happened."

End Part 1/3

[s3kiz]

Part 2/3

Further attempts for ENOSIS
On Sept. 10, 1964, the U.N. Secretary-General reported that:
"UNFICYP carried out a detailed survey of all damage to properties throughout the island during the disturbances... It shows that in 109 villages, most of them Turkish-Cypriot or mixed villages, 527 houses have been destroyed while 2,000 others have suffered damage from looting.
In Ktima 38 houses and shops have been destroyed totally and 122 partially. In the Orphomita suburb of Nicosia, 50 houses have been totally destroyed while a further 240 have been partially destroyed there and in adjacent suburbs."

The U.K. House of Commons Select Committee on Foreign Affairs reviewed the Cyprus question in 1987 and reported unanimously on July 2 of that year that: "although the Cyprus Government now claims to have been merely seeking to 'operate the 1960 Constitution modified to the extent dictated by the necessities of the situation,' this claim ignores the fact that both before and after the events of, December 1963 the Makarios Government continued to advocate the cause of ENOSIS and actively pursued the amendment of the Constitution and the related treaties to facilitate this ultimate objective."

The committee continued: "Moreover, in June 1967 the Greek Cypriot legislature unanimously passed a resolution in favor of enosis, in blatant contravention of the 1960 Treaties and Constitution." (Art. I of the Treaty of Guarantee prohibited any action likely to directly or indirectly promote union with any other state or partition of the island, and Art. 185(2) of the Constitution is to similar effect.)

Professor Ernst Forsthoff, the neutral president of the Supreme Constitutional Court of Cyprus, told Die Welt on Dec. 27, 1963: "Makarios bears on his shoulders the sole responsibility for the recent tragic events. His aim is to deprive the Turkish community of their rights". In an interview with the UPI press agency on Dec. 30, 1963 he said, "All this happened because Makarios wanted to take away all constitutional rights from the Turkish Cypriots."

The Failure of the UN and the others
The United Nations not only failed to condemn the forcible usurpation of the legal order in Cyprus, but actually rewarded it by treating the by then wholly Greek Cypriot administration as if it were the government of Cyprus (Security Council Res. 186 of 1964). This acceptance has continued to the present day, and reflects no credit upon the United Nations, nor upon Britain, nor the other countries who have acquiesced.

On Aug. 12, 1964, the UK representative to the United Nations wrote to his government in London as follows:
"What is our policy and true feelings about the future of Cyprus and about Makarios? Judging from the English newspapers and many others, the feeling is very strong indeed against Makarios and his so-called government, and nothing would please the British people more than to see him toppled and the Cyprus problem solved by the direct dealings between the Turks and the Greeks. We are of course supporting the latter course, but I have never seen any expression of the official disapproval in public against Makarios and his evil doings. Is there an official view about this, and what do we think we should do in the long run? Sometimes it seems that the obsession of some people with "the Commonwealth" blinds us to everything else and it would be high treason to take more active line against Makarios and his henchmen. At other times the dominant feature seems to be concern lest active opposition against Makarios should lead to direct conflict with the Cypriots and end up with our losing our bases."

Exclusion of the Turkish Cypriots from representation at the international fora
Thereafter Turkish Cypriot MPs, judges, and other officials were intimidated or prevented by force from carrying out their duties.

According to the Select Committee, "The effect of the crisis of December 1963 was to deliver control of the formal organs of government into the hands of the Greek Cypriots alone. Claiming to be acting in accordance with the doctrine of necessity, the Greek Cypriot members of the House of Representatives enacted a series of laws which provided for the operation of the organs of government without Turkish Cypriot participation."

The report of the Select Committee continued: "Equality damaging from the Turkish Cypriot point of view was what they considered to be their effective exclusion from representation at and participation in the international fora where their case could have been deployed... An official Turkish Cypriot presence in the international political scene virtually disappeared overnight." It is not therefore surprising that the world has been persuaded to the Greek Cypriot point of view.

End Part 2/3

[s3kiz]

Part 3/3

Atrocities of the Greek Cypriots
More than 300 Turkish Cypriots are still missing without trace from these massacres of 1963/64. These dreadful events were not the responsibility of "the Greek Colonels" of 1974 or an unrepresentative handful of Greek Cypriot extremists.

The persecution of the Turkish Cypriots was an act of policy on the part of the Greek Cypriot political and religious leadership, which has to this day made no serious attempt to bring the murderers to justice.

The UK Commons Select Committee found that "there is little doubt that much of the violence which the Turkish Cypriots claim led to the total or partial destruction of 103 Turkish villages and the displacement of about a quarter of the total Turkish Cypriot population was either directly inspired by, or connived at, by the Greek Cypriot leadership."

The UN secretary-general reported to the Security Council:
"When the disturbances broke out in December 1963 and continued during the first part of 1964, thousands of Turkish Cypriots fled their homes, taking with them only what they could drive or carry, and sought refuge in safer villages and areas."

On Jan. 14, 1964, "ll Giorno" of Italy reported: "Right now we are witnessing the exodus of Turkish Cypriots from the villages. Thousands of people abandoning homes, land, herds. Greek Cypriot terrorism is relentless. This time the rhetoric of the Hellenes and the statues of Plato do not cover up their barbaric and ferocious behavior."

The Greek Cypriots sometimes allege that it was they who were attacked by the Turkish Cypriots, who were determined to wreck the 1960 agreements. However, the Turkish Cypriots were not only outnumbered by nearly four to one; they were also surrounded in their villages by armed Greek Cypriots; they had no way of protecting their women and children, and Turkey was 40 miles away across the sea. The very idea that in those circumstances the Turkish Cypriots were the aggressors is absurd.

The role of the mainland Greek troops in overthrowing of Makarios
There were further attacks on the Turkish Cypriots in 1967. In 1971, General Grivas returned to Cyprus to form EOKA-B, which was again committed to making Cyprus a wholly Greek island and annexing it to Greece.

In a speech to the Greek Cypriot armed forces at the time (quoted in "New Cyprus," May 1987) Grivas said: "The Greek forces from Greece have come to Cyprus in order to impose the will of the Greeks of Cyprus upon the Turks. We want ENOSIS but the Turks are against it. We shall impose our will. We are strong, and we shall do so."

By July 15, 1974, a powerful force of mainland Greek troops had assembled in Cyprus and with their backing, the Greek Cypriot National Guard overthrew Makarios and installed one Nicos Sampson as "president." On July 22, the Washington Star News reported: "Bodies littered the streets and there were mass burials... People told by Makarios to lay down their guns were shot by the National Guard."

Missing persons, what is the truth?
On April 17, 1991, Ambassador Nelson Ledsky testified before the U.S. Senate Foreign Relations Committee that :
"most of the 'missing persons' disappeared in the first days of July 1974, before the Turkish intervention on the 20th. Many killed on the Greek side were killed by Greek Cypriots in fighting between supporters of Makarios and Sampson."

On Nov. 6, 1974, Ta Nea reported that dates from the graves of Greek Cypriots killed in the five days between July 15-20 were erased in order to blame these deaths on the subsequent Turkish military action.

On March 3, 1996, the Greek Cypriot Cyprus Mail wrote: "(Greek) Cypriot governments have found it convenient to conceal the scale of atrocities during the July 15 coup in an attempt to downplay its contribution to the tragedy of the summer of 1974 and instead blame the Turkish invasion for all casualties.

There can be no justification for any government that failed to investigate this sensitive humanitarian issue. The shocking admission by the Clerides government that there are people buried in Nicosia cemetery who are still included in the list of the 'missing' is the last episode of a human drama which has been turned into a propaganda tool."

On Oct. 19 1996, Mr. Georgios Lanitis wrote: "I was serving with the Foreign Information Service of the Republic of Cyprus in London... I deeply apologize to all those I told that there are 1,619 missing persons. I misled them. I was made a liar, deliberately, by the government of Cyprus . .... today it seems that the credibility of Cyprus is nil."

Had Turkey not intervened, what would have happened?
Turkish Cypriots appealed to the guarantor powers for help, but only Turkey was willing to make any effective response. On July 20, 1974 Turkey intervened under Article IV of the Treaty of Guarantee.

The Greek newspaper Eleftherotipia published an interview with Nicos Sampson on Feb. 26, 1981 in which he said, "Had Turkey not intervened I would not only have proclaimed ENOSIS, I would have annihilated the Turks in Cyprus."

More attacks against the Turkish community
The Times and The Guardian reported on Aug. 21, 1974 that in the village of Tokhni on Aug. 14, 1974 all the Turkish Cypriot men between the ages of 13 and 74, except for eighteen who managed to escape, were taken away and shot.

There were also reports that in Zyyi on the same day all the Turkish-Cypriot men aged between 19 an 38 were taken away and were never seen again and that Greek-Cypriots opened fire on the Turkish-Cypriot neighborhood of Paphos killing men, women, and children indiscriminately.

On July 23, 1974, the Washington Post reported that "in a Greek raid on a small Turkish village near Limassol 36 people out of a population of 200 were killed. The Greeks said that they had been given orders to kill the inhabitants of the Turkish villages before the Turkish forces arrived."

The Times and The Guardian also reported on the killings. "The Greeks began to shell the Turkish quarter on Saturday, refugees said. Kazan Dervis, a Turkish Cypriot girl aged 15, said she had been staying with her uncle."

"The [Greek Cypriot] National Guard came into the Turkish sector and shooting began. She saw her uncle and other relatives taken away as prisoners, and later heard her uncle had been shot." (Times 23.7.74)

On July 28, 1974 the New York Times reported that 14 Turkish-Cypriot men had been shot in Alaminos. On July 24, 1974 France Soir reported that "the Greeks burned Turkish mosques and set fire to Turkish homes in the villages around Famagusta. Defenseless Turkish villagers who have weapons live in an atmosphere of terror and they evacuate their homes and go and live in tents in the forest. The Greeks' actions are a shame to humanity."

On July 22, Turkish Prime Minister Ecevit called upon the United Nations to "stop the genocide of Turkish Cypriots" and declared, "Turkey has accepted a cease-fire, but will not allow Turkish Cypriots to be massacred."

The German newspaper Die Zeit wrote on Aug. 30, "The massacre of Turkish Cypriots in Paphos and Famagusta is the proof of how justified the Turks were to undertake their intervention."

"Turkish Cypriots, who had suffered from physical attacks since 1963, called on the guarantor powers to prevent a Greek conquest of the island. When Britain did nothing Turkey invaded Cyprus and occupied its northern part. Turkish Cypriots have constitutional right on their side and understandably fear a renewal of persecution if the Turkish army withdraws", the Daily Telegraph wrote on Aug. 15, 1996.

At last, peace for the Turkish Cypriots
"Turkey intervened to protect the lives and property of the Turkish-Cypriots, and to its credit it has done just that. In the 12 years since, there have been no killings and no massacres" Lord Willis (Labor) told the House of Lords on Dec. 17, 1986.

On March 12, 1977, Makarios declared, "It is in the name of ENOSIS that Cyprus has been destroyed."

The United Nations, the Commonwealth, and the rest of the world have put political expediency before principle and failed to condemn this appalling behavior.

Greek Cypriots are guilty of attempted genocide but no action has ever been taken against them. Instead they have been rewarded by recognition as the government of all Cyprus.

The Turkish Cypriots by contrast were frozen out of the United Nations, the Commonwealth and almost every other international organization.
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/578321/posts

End Part 3/3

Cheers.

[eliaslar]

Maybe the origin of this problem is that Cyprus at first place got it's freedom from Great Britain.

Maybe it would have been inevitable for peace to be kept, as they both Greeks and Turkish population wanted to unite the island with their motherlands.

1956 the Turks with F. Kutchuck
1963 the Greeks with Akritas

Don't you think that peace was very fragile? Also attrocities happened from both sides, before the invasion and after the invasion, both sides can prove it with lots of articles.

[eliaslar]

The conclusion someone can make, by your comment, about international organisations, who have condemned Turkey lots of times (but such condemns may not count for Turkey) is very interesting. It gives me a feeling of disrespect of Turkish side by those organisations.

"The United Nations, the Commonwealth, and the rest of the world have put political expediency before principle and failed to condemn this appalling behavior.

Greek Cypriots are guilty of attempted genocide but no action has ever been taken against them. Instead they have been rewarded by recognition as the government of all Cyprus.

The Turkish Cypriots by contrast were frozen out of the United Nations, the Commonwealth and almost every other international organization."

I will go a bit off topic but on the other hand you use such organisations condemnations on Greece to claim the rights of the muslim minority.

It would be very usefull from your side to give us a list with the organisations we should follow in each case...you confused me a bit on what is right and what is wrong...

[wyoming cowboy]

Part 3/3

Atrocities of the Greek Cypriots
More than 300 Turkish Cypriots are still missing without trace from these massacres of 1963/64. These dreadful events were not the responsibility of "the Greek Colonels" of 1974 or an unrepresentative handful of Greek Cypriot extremists.

The persecution of the Turkish Cypriots was an act of policy on the part of the Greek Cypriot political and religious leadership, which has to this day made no serious attempt to bring the murderers to justice.

The UK Commons Select Committee found that "there is little doubt that much of the violence which the Turkish Cypriots claim led to the total or partial destruction of 103 Turkish villages and the displacement of about a quarter of the total Turkish Cypriot population was either directly inspired by, or connived at, by the Greek Cypriot leadership."

The UN secretary-general reported to the Security Council:
"When the disturbances broke out in December 1963 and continued during the first part of 1964, thousands of Turkish Cypriots fled their homes, taking with them only what they could drive or carry, and sought refuge in safer villages and areas."

On Jan. 14, 1964, "ll Giorno" of Italy reported: "Right now we are witnessing the exodus of Turkish Cypriots from the villages. Thousands of people abandoning homes, land, herds. Greek Cypriot terrorism is relentless. This time the rhetoric of the Hellenes and the statues of Plato do not cover up their barbaric and ferocious behavior."

The Greek Cypriots sometimes allege that it was they who were attacked by the Turkish Cypriots, who were determined to wreck the 1960 agreements. However, the Turkish Cypriots were not only outnumbered by nearly four to one; they were also surrounded in their villages by armed Greek Cypriots; they had no way of protecting their women and children, and Turkey was 40 miles away across the sea. The very idea that in those circumstances the Turkish Cypriots were the aggressors is absurd.

The role of the mainland Greek troops in overthrowing of Makarios
There were further attacks on the Turkish Cypriots in 1967. In 1971, General Grivas returned to Cyprus to form EOKA-B, which was again committed to making Cyprus a wholly Greek island and annexing it to Greece.

In a speech to the Greek Cypriot armed forces at the time (quoted in "New Cyprus," May 1987) Grivas said: "The Greek forces from Greece have come to Cyprus in order to impose the will of the Greeks of Cyprus upon the Turks. We want ENOSIS but the Turks are against it. We shall impose our will. We are strong, and we shall do so."

By July 15, 1974, a powerful force of mainland Greek troops had assembled in Cyprus and with their backing, the Greek Cypriot National Guard overthrew Makarios and installed one Nicos Sampson as "president." On July 22, the Washington Star News reported: "Bodies littered the streets and there were mass burials... People told by Makarios to lay down their guns were shot by the National Guard."

Missing persons, what is the truth?
On April 17, 1991, Ambassador Nelson Ledsky testified before the U.S. Senate Foreign Relations Committee that :
"most of the 'missing persons' disappeared in the first days of July 1974, before the Turkish intervention on the 20th. Many killed on the Greek side were killed by Greek Cypriots in fighting between supporters of Makarios and Sampson."

On Nov. 6, 1974, Ta Nea reported that dates from the graves of Greek Cypriots killed in the five days between July 15-20 were erased in order to blame these deaths on the subsequent Turkish military action.

On March 3, 1996, the Greek Cypriot Cyprus Mail wrote: "(Greek) Cypriot governments have found it convenient to conceal the scale of atrocities during the July 15 coup in an attempt to downplay its contribution to the tragedy of the summer of 1974 and instead blame the Turkish invasion for all casualties.

There can be no justification for any government that failed to investigate this sensitive humanitarian issue. The shocking admission by the Clerides government that there are people buried in Nicosia cemetery who are still included in the list of the 'missing' is the last episode of a human drama which has been turned into a propaganda tool."

On Oct. 19 1996, Mr. Georgios Lanitis wrote: "I was serving with the Foreign Information Service of the Republic of Cyprus in London... I deeply apologize to all those I told that there are 1,619 missing persons. I misled them. I was made a liar, deliberately, by the government of Cyprus . .... today it seems that the credibility of Cyprus is nil."

Had Turkey not intervened, what would have happened?
Turkish Cypriots appealed to the guarantor powers for help, but only Turkey was willing to make any effective response. On July 20, 1974 Turkey intervened under Article IV of the Treaty of Guarantee.

The Greek newspaper Eleftherotipia published an interview with Nicos Sampson on Feb. 26, 1981 in which he said, "Had Turkey not intervened I would not only have proclaimed ENOSIS, I would have annihilated the Turks in Cyprus."

More attacks against the Turkish community
The Times and The Guardian reported on Aug. 21, 1974 that in the village of Tokhni on Aug. 14, 1974 all the Turkish Cypriot men between the ages of 13 and 74, except for eighteen who managed to escape, were taken away and shot.

There were also reports that in Zyyi on the same day all the Turkish-Cypriot men aged between 19 an 38 were taken away and were never seen again and that Greek-Cypriots opened fire on the Turkish-Cypriot neighborhood of Paphos killing men, women, and children indiscriminately.

On July 23, 1974, the Washington Post reported that "in a Greek raid on a small Turkish village near Limassol 36 people out of a population of 200 were killed. The Greeks said that they had been given orders to kill the inhabitants of the Turkish villages before the Turkish forces arrived."

The Times and The Guardian also reported on the killings. "The Greeks began to shell the Turkish quarter on Saturday, refugees said. Kazan Dervis, a Turkish Cypriot girl aged 15, said she had been staying with her uncle."

"The [Greek Cypriot] National Guard came into the Turkish sector and shooting began. She saw her uncle and other relatives taken away as prisoners, and later heard her uncle had been shot." (Times 23.7.74)

On July 28, 1974 the New York Times reported that 14 Turkish-Cypriot men had been shot in Alaminos. On July 24, 1974 France Soir reported that "the Greeks burned Turkish mosques and set fire to Turkish homes in the villages around Famagusta. Defenseless Turkish villagers who have weapons live in an atmosphere of terror and they evacuate their homes and go and live in tents in the forest. The Greeks' actions are a shame to humanity."

On July 22, Turkish Prime Minister Ecevit called upon the United Nations to "stop the genocide of Turkish Cypriots" and declared, "Turkey has accepted a cease-fire, but will not allow Turkish Cypriots to be massacred."

The German newspaper Die Zeit wrote on Aug. 30, "The massacre of Turkish Cypriots in Paphos and Famagusta is the proof of how justified the Turks were to undertake their intervention."

"Turkish Cypriots, who had suffered from physical attacks since 1963, called on the guarantor powers to prevent a Greek conquest of the island. When Britain did nothing Turkey invaded Cyprus and occupied its northern part. Turkish Cypriots have constitutional right on their side and understandably fear a renewal of persecution if the Turkish army withdraws", the Daily Telegraph wrote on Aug. 15, 1996.

At last, peace for the Turkish Cypriots
"Turkey intervened to protect the lives and property of the Turkish-Cypriots, and to its credit it has done just that. In the 12 years since, there have been no killings and no massacres" Lord Willis (Labor) told the House of Lords on Dec. 17, 1986.

On March 12, 1977, Makarios declared, "It is in the name of ENOSIS that Cyprus has been destroyed."

The United Nations, the Commonwealth, and the rest of the world have put political expediency before principle and failed to condemn this appalling behavior.

Greek Cypriots are guilty of attempted genocide but no action has ever been taken against them. Instead they have been rewarded by recognition as the government of all Cyprus.

The Turkish Cypriots by contrast were frozen out of the United Nations, the Commonwealth and almost every other international organization.
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/578321/posts

End Part 3/3

Cheers.Again most of these articles you point out are after the invasion of Turkey on Cyprus..on July 20 1974, a war was begun by Turkey people from both sides took up arms to defend themselves The atrocities that Turkey committed during the invasion were horrendous 6,800 civilians killed 1500 missing in action and believed to be still alive...You say that Greece sent in a strong contingent of soldiers, that is not true again i reiterate the minority attempted between the years of 64-67 to userp the agreement that they had signed..20 percent are Turk cyp..they took up arms against the majority 80 percent ...The TMT the turk cyp terrorist organization was formed to kill Greek cyp EOKA on the other hand was formed to fight the British Empire..who began the killings obviously the Turk cyp TMT terrorist organization...The only ethnic conflicts were between 64-67...Again the Turk cyp were fanatical about TAKSIM partition even after they signed the 60 agreements...Again the violence between 64-67 occured when the Turk cyp took up arms against the Greek cyp...Again between 67-74 there was no ethnic violence Again...The coup by the Greek generals against Makarios did not have the support of the Greek cyp population, EOKA B was formed in 1971 in order to overthrow Makarios, Again EOKA B was not formed to kill Turk cyps..Again every UN resolution concerning Cyprus supports the sovereignty of the Republic of Cyprus and after 1974 calls for all Turkish troops to leave the island...Again the Turkish invasion of Cyprus is not legal under international law and UN resolutions and for all refugees Greek and Turk to return to their homes...Again follow the facts of the situation, The UN offered protection to certain villages that harbored TMT terrorist, not all Turk villages were offered protection because they were not threatened...Up until the invasion of 74 Turk cyps were returning from their self imposed enclave and living and working together with Greek cyp without any troubles..

[s3kiz]

Maybe the origin of this problem is that Cyprus at first place got it's freedom from Great Britain.

Maybe it would have been inevitable for peace to be kept, as they both Greeks and Turkish population wanted to unite the island with their motherlands.

Instead of regurgitating the information in this thread.

I will, with all respect, ask you if you have?
-Read this thread from the very beginning, in an attempt to “understand” whats written?
-Observed, checked, verified the evidence put forward?
-Attempted to grasp the origins, evolution and developments of this conflict?

Or,

Are you merely in state of reliance on the distorted perceptions (and falsely calimed) “Turkish invasion” of 1974?. Created due to the millenium old manipulative, devious and discoursive political games of Greeks, referred to in political literature as “Byzantine/Greek Intrigue”.

And is it because of this that, you and the other Greek poster on this thread “wyoming cowbow” are bringing forward:
-claims without evidence,
-trying to distort this threads topic by off-topic claims to cling on to and stir emotional propaganda inline with “yeah but we all know Turks are barbarians”
-twisting the dates of news articles,
-and bringing “maybe this”, “maybe that” kind of arguments without facts, which already have been comprehensively and clearly refuted with the evidence in this thread?

And posting such things to force the presented evidence to go back in the posting order, burried in the thread, perhaps in an attempt to censor as much as possible?

Like Glafcos Clerides said:
"I am sorry that it is wishful thinking and a false dream to believe.…..The things that count are arguments, not slogans."
("My Deposition" by Glafcos Clerides [former President of Greek Cypriot Republic of Cyprus], Vol.3 (referring to Greek politicians who try to manipulate word perceptions on the facts of Cyprus Conflict) ]


Don't you think that peace was very fragile? Also attrocities happened from both sides, before the invasion and after the invasion, both sides can prove it with lots of articles.

That is why I say that the Greeks should stop their political manipulations and realize the lies been made about this conflict.

And come to realize that they have;
-Done “lot of wrongs have been done to Turkish Cypriots”
-That“the Greek Cypriot side has tried to do away with the agreements”
-In an effort “to deprive the Turkish Cypriots from their rights,"
-and that "the Enosis(union with Greece) road was followed” causing this conflict and ethnic cleansing of Turks.
("My Deposition" by Glafcos Clerides [former President of Greek Cypriot Republic of Cyprus], Vol.3]

And see that peace comes with;
-Ending continued claims by Greeks to own whole of the island,
-Respect the Turkish Cypriots existance,
-Recognize that after all this conflict, that both sides of the island have the justfull right to go their own way.

…you confused me a bit on what is right and what is wrong...
I get confused sometimes too, but I easily overcome such confusions when I use my intellect and reach down my heart.

Cheers.

[s3kiz]

Again most of these articles you point out are after the invasion of Turkey on Cyprus..on July 20 1974, a war was begun by Turkey people from both sides took up arms to defend themselves….
Please re-read the evidence below you claim as false:


Part 1/3

Attempted Genocide and Ethnic Cleansing in Cyprus
By Michael Stephen, former British Parliamentarian (1992-97)

The assertion by Mr. Christides (May 10, 1999) that there was no ethnic cleansing or attempted genocide of Turkish Cypriots by Greek Cypriots is ridiculous. Until influential Greek Cypriots come to terms with the appalling behavior of their community toward the smaller Turkish Cypriot community and stop trying to persuade themselves and the world that each side was as much to blame as the other, there will be no reconciliation in Cyprus.
What did George Ball and Sir Alec Douglas say about the intentions of Archbishop Makarios vis a vis the Turkish Cypriots?

In his memoirs, American Undersecretary of State George Ball said: "Makarios's central interest was to block off Turkish intervention so that he and his Greek Cypriots could go on happily massacring Turkish Cypriots. Obviously we would never permit that. "

The fact is, however, that neither the United Nations, nor anyone, other than Turkey ever took effective action to prevent it.

On Feb. 17, 1964 the Washington Post reported that "Greek Cypriot fanatics appear bent on a policy of genocide."

Former British Prime Minister Sir Alec Douglas-Home said, "I was convinced that if Archbishop Makarios could not bring himself to treat the Turkish Cypriots as human beings he was inviting the invasion and partition of the island."

On July 28, 1960 Makarios, the Greek Cypriot president, said: "The independence agreements do not form the goal they are the present and not the future. The Greek Cypriot people will continue their national cause and shape their future in accordance with THEIR will."

In a speech on Sept. 4, 1962 at Panayia Makarios said, "Until this Turkish community forming part of the Turkish race that has been the terrible enemy of Hellenism is expelled, the duty of the heroes of EOKA can never be considered terminated.

The Constitutional Coup
In November 1963 the Greek Cypriots demanded the abolition of no less than eight of the basic articles that had been included in the 1960 agreement for the protection of the Turkish Cypriots. The Turkish Cypriots, naturally, refused to agree.

The aim of the Greek Cypriots was to reduce the Turkish Cypriot people to the status of a mere minority, wholly subject to the control of the Greek Cypriots, pending ultimate destruction or expulsion of the Turkish Cypriots from the island.

"When the Turkish Cypriots objected to the amendment of the Constitution, Makarios put his plan into effect, and the Greek Cypriot attack began in December 1963," wrote Lt. Gen. George Karayiannis of The Greek Cypriot militia ("Ethnikos Kiryx" 15.6.65). The general was referring to the notorious "Akritas" plan, which was the blueprint for the annihilation of the Turkish Cypriots and the annexation of the island to Greece.

Events leading to the sending of the UN Peace-Keeping Force to the island
On Christmas Eve 1963 the Greek Cypriot militia attacked Turkish Cypriot communities across the island. Large numbers of men, women, and children were killed and 270 mosques, shrines and other places of worship were desecrated.

On Dec. 28, 1963, the Daily Express carried the following report from Cyprus: "We went tonight into the sealed-off Turkish Cypriot quarter of Nicosia in which 200 to 300 people had been slaughtered in the last five days. We were the first Western reporters there, and we have seen sights too frightful to be described in print. Horror was so extreme that the people seemed stunned beyond tears."

On Dec. 31, 1963, The Guardian reported: "It is nonsense to claim, as the Greek Cypriots do, that all casualties were caused by fighting between armed men of both sides. On Christmas Eve many Turkish Cypriot people were brutally attacked and murdered in their suburban homes, including the wife and children of a doctor-allegedly by a group of 40 men, many in army boots and greatcoats." Although the Turkish Cypriots fought back as best they could and killed some militia, there were no massacres of Greek Cypriot civilians.

On Jan. 1, 1964, the Daily Herald reported: "When I came across the Turkish Cypriot homes they were an appalling sight. Apart from the walls they just did not exist. I doubt if a napalm attack could have created more devastation. Under roofs springs, children's cots, and gray ashes of what had once been tables, chairs and wardrobes. In the neighboring village of Ayios Vassilios I counted 16 wrecked and burned out homes. They were all Turkish Cypriot's. In neither village did I find a scrap of damage to any Greek Cypriot house."

On Jan. 2, 1964, the Daily Telegraph wrote: "The Greek Cypriot community should not assume that the British military presence can or should secure them against Turkish intervention if they persecute the Turkish Cypriots. We must not be a shelter for double-crossers."

On Jan. 12, 1964, the British High Commission in Nicosia wrote in a telegram to London: "The Greek [Cypriot] police are led by extremist who provoked the fighting and deliberately engaged in atrocities. They have recruited into their ranks as 'special constables' gun-happy young thugs. They threaten to try and punish any Turkish Cypriot police who wishes to return to the Cyprus Government... Makarios assured Sir Arthur Clark that there will be no attack. His assurance is as worthless as previous assurances have proved."

On Jan. 14, 1964, the Daily Telegraph reported that the "Turkish Cypriot inhabitants of Ayios Vassilios had been massacred on Dec. 26, 1963" and reported their exhumation from a mass grave in the presence of the Red Cross.

A further massacre of Turkish Cypriots, at Limassol, was reported by The Observer on Feb. 16, 1964; and there were many more.

On Feb. 6, 1964, a British patrol found armed Greek Cypriot police attacking the Turkish Cypriots of Ayios Sozomenos. They were unable to stop the attack.

On Feb. 13, 1964, the Greeks and Greek Cypriots attacked the Turkish Cypriot quarter of Limassol with tanks, killing 16 and injuring 35.

On Feb. 15, 1964, the Daily Telegraph reported: "It is a real military operation which the Greek Cypriots launched against the 6,000 inhabitants of the Turkish Cypriot quarter yesterday morning. A spokesman for the Greek Cypriot government has recognized this officially. It is hard to conceive how Greek and Turkish Cypriots may seriously contemplate working together after all that has happened."

End Part 1/3

[s3kiz]

Part 2/3

Further attempts for ENOSIS
On Sept. 10, 1964, the U.N. Secretary-General reported that:
"UNFICYP carried out a detailed survey of all damage to properties throughout the island during the disturbances... It shows that in 109 villages, most of them Turkish-Cypriot or mixed villages, 527 houses have been destroyed while 2,000 others have suffered damage from looting.
In Ktima 38 houses and shops have been destroyed totally and 122 partially. In the Orphomita suburb of Nicosia, 50 houses have been totally destroyed while a further 240 have been partially destroyed there and in adjacent suburbs."

The U.K. House of Commons Select Committee on Foreign Affairs reviewed the Cyprus question in 1987 and reported unanimously on July 2 of that year that:
"although the Cyprus Government now claims to have been merely seeking to 'operate the 1960 Constitution modified to the extent dictated by the necessities of the situation,' this claim ignores the fact that both before and after the events of, December 1963 the Makarios Government continued to advocate the cause of ENOSIS and actively pursued the amendment of the Constitution and the related treaties to facilitate this ultimate objective."

The committee continued: "Moreover, in June 1967 the Greek Cypriot legislature unanimously passed a resolution in favor of enosis, in blatant contravention of the 1960 Treaties and Constitution." (Art. I of the Treaty of Guarantee prohibited any action likely to directly or indirectly promote union with any other state or partition of the island, and Art. 185(2) of the Constitution is to similar effect.)

Professor Ernst Forsthoff, the neutral president of the Supreme Constitutional Court of Cyprus, told Die Welt on Dec. 27, 1963: "Makarios bears on his shoulders the sole responsibility for the recent tragic events. His aim is to deprive the Turkish community of their rights". In an interview with the UPI press agency on Dec. 30, 1963 he said, "All this happened because Makarios wanted to take away all constitutional rights from the Turkish Cypriots."

The Failure of the UN and the others
The United Nations not only failed to condemn the forcible usurpation of the legal order in Cyprus, but actually rewarded it by treating the by then wholly Greek Cypriot administration as if it were the government of Cyprus (Security Council Res. 186 of 1964). This acceptance has continued to the present day, and reflects no credit upon the United Nations, nor upon Britain, nor the other countries who have acquiesced.

On Aug. 12, 1964, the UK representative to the United Nations wrote to his government in London as follows:
"What is our policy and true feelings about the future of Cyprus and about Makarios? Judging from the English newspapers and many others, the feeling is very strong indeed against Makarios and his so-called government, and nothing would please the British people more than to see him toppled and the Cyprus problem solved by the direct dealings between the Turks and the Greeks. We are of course supporting the latter course, but I have never seen any expression of the official disapproval in public against Makarios and his evil doings. Is there an official view about this, and what do we think we should do in the long run? Sometimes it seems that the obsession of some people with "the Commonwealth" blinds us to everything else and it would be high treason to take more active line against Makarios and his henchmen. At other times the dominant feature seems to be concern lest active opposition against Makarios should lead to direct conflict with the Cypriots and end up with our losing our bases."

Exclusion of the Turkish Cypriots from representation at the international fora
Thereafter Turkish Cypriot MPs, judges, and other officials were intimidated or prevented by force from carrying out their duties.

According to the Select Committee, "The effect of the crisis of December 1963 was to deliver control of the formal organs of government into the hands of the Greek Cypriots alone. Claiming to be acting in accordance with the doctrine of necessity, the Greek Cypriot members of the House of Representatives enacted a series of laws which provided for the operation of the organs of government without Turkish Cypriot participation."

The report of the Select Committee continued: "Equality damaging from the Turkish Cypriot point of view was what they considered to be their effective exclusion from representation at and participation in the international fora where their case could have been deployed... An official Turkish Cypriot presence in the international political scene virtually disappeared overnight." It is not therefore surprising that the world has been persuaded to the Greek Cypriot point of view.

End Part 2/3

[s3kiz]

Part 3/3

Atrocities of the Greek Cypriots
More than 300 Turkish Cypriots are still missing without trace from these massacres of 1963/64. These dreadful events were not the responsibility of "the Greek Colonels" of 1974 or an unrepresentative handful of Greek Cypriot extremists.

The persecution of the Turkish Cypriots was an act of policy on the part of the Greek Cypriot political and religious leadership, which has to this day made no serious attempt to bring the murderers to justice.

The UK Commons Select Committee found that "there is little doubt that much of the violence which the Turkish Cypriots claim led to the total or partial destruction of 103 Turkish villages and the displacement of about a quarter of the total Turkish Cypriot population was either directly inspired by, or connived at, by the Greek Cypriot leadership."

The UN secretary-general reported to the Security Council:
"When the disturbances broke out in December 1963 and continued during the first part of 1964, thousands of Turkish Cypriots fled their homes, taking with them only what they could drive or carry, and sought refuge in safer villages and areas."

On Jan. 14, 1964, "ll Giorno" of Italy reported: "Right now we are witnessing the exodus of Turkish Cypriots from the villages. Thousands of people abandoning homes, land, herds. Greek Cypriot terrorism is relentless. This time the rhetoric of the Hellenes and the statues of Plato do not cover up their barbaric and ferocious behavior."

The Greek Cypriots sometimes allege that it was they who were attacked by the Turkish Cypriots, who were determined to wreck the 1960 agreements. However, the Turkish Cypriots were not only outnumbered by nearly four to one; they were also surrounded in their villages by armed Greek Cypriots; they had no way of protecting their women and children, and Turkey was 40 miles away across the sea. The very idea that in those circumstances the Turkish Cypriots were the aggressors is absurd.

The role of the mainland Greek troops in overthrowing of Makarios:
There were further attacks on the Turkish Cypriots in 1967. In 1971, General Grivas returned to Cyprus to form EOKA-B, which was again committed to making Cyprus a wholly Greek island and annexing it to Greece.

In a speech to the Greek Cypriot armed forces at the time (quoted in "New Cyprus," May 1987) Grivas said: "The Greek forces from Greece have come to Cyprus in order to impose the will of the Greeks of Cyprus upon the Turks. We want ENOSIS but the Turks are against it. We shall impose our will. We are strong, and we shall do so."

By July 15, 1974, a powerful force of mainland Greek troops had assembled in Cyprus and with their backing, the Greek Cypriot National Guard overthrew Makarios and installed one Nicos Sampson as "president." On July 22, the Washington Star News reported: "Bodies littered the streets and there were mass burials... People told by Makarios to lay down their guns were shot by the National Guard."

Missing persons, what is the truth?
On April 17, 1991, Ambassador Nelson Ledsky testified before the U.S. Senate Foreign Relations Committee that :
"most of the 'missing persons' disappeared in the first days of July 1974, before the Turkish intervention on the 20th. Many killed on the Greek side were killed by Greek Cypriots in fighting between supporters of Makarios and Sampson."

On Nov. 6, 1974, Ta Nea reported that dates from the graves of Greek Cypriots killed in the five days between July 15-20 were erased in order to blame these deaths on the subsequent Turkish military action.

On March 3, 1996, the Greek Cypriot Cyprus Mail wrote: "(Greek) Cypriot governments have found it convenient to conceal the scale of atrocities during the July 15 coup in an attempt to downplay its contribution to the tragedy of the summer of 1974 and instead blame the Turkish invasion for all casualties.

There can be no justification for any government that failed to investigate this sensitive humanitarian issue. The shocking admission by the Clerides government that there are people buried in Nicosia cemetery who are still included in the list of the 'missing' is the last episode of a human drama which has been turned into a propaganda tool."

On Oct. 19 1996, Mr. Georgios Lanitis wrote: "I was serving with the Foreign Information Service of the Republic of Cyprus in London... I deeply apologize to all those I told that there are 1,619 missing persons. I misled them. I was made a liar, deliberately, by the government of Cyprus . .... today it seems that the credibility of Cyprus is nil."

Had Turkey not intervened, what would have happened?
Turkish Cypriots appealed to the guarantor powers for help, but only Turkey was willing to make any effective response. On July 20, 1974 Turkey intervened under Article IV of the Treaty of Guarantee.

The Greek newspaper Eleftherotipia published an interview with Nicos Sampson on Feb. 26, 1981 in which he said, "Had Turkey not intervened I would not only have proclaimed ENOSIS, I would have annihilated the Turks in Cyprus."

More attacks against the Turkish community
The Times and The Guardian reported on Aug. 21, 1974 that in the village of Tokhni on Aug. 14, 1974 all the Turkish Cypriot men between the ages of 13 and 74, except for eighteen who managed to escape, were taken away and shot.

There were also reports that in Zyyi on the same day all the Turkish-Cypriot men aged between 19 an 38 were taken away and were never seen again and that Greek-Cypriots opened fire on the Turkish-Cypriot neighborhood of Paphos killing men, women, and children indiscriminately.

On July 23, 1974, the Washington Post reported that "in a Greek raid on a small Turkish village near Limassol 36 people out of a population of 200 were killed. The Greeks said that they had been given orders to kill the inhabitants of the Turkish villages before the Turkish forces arrived."

The Times and The Guardian also reported on the killings. "The Greeks began to shell the Turkish quarter on Saturday, refugees said. Kazan Dervis, a Turkish Cypriot girl aged 15, said she had been staying with her uncle."

"The [Greek Cypriot] National Guard came into the Turkish sector and shooting began. She saw her uncle and other relatives taken away as prisoners, and later heard her uncle had been shot." (Times 23.7.74)

On July 28, 1974 the New York Times reported that 14 Turkish-Cypriot men had been shot in Alaminos. On July 24, 1974 France Soir reported that "the Greeks burned Turkish mosques and set fire to Turkish homes in the villages around Famagusta. Defenseless Turkish villagers who have weapons live in an atmosphere of terror and they evacuate their homes and go and live in tents in the forest. The Greeks' actions are a shame to humanity."

On July 22, Turkish Prime Minister Ecevit called upon the United Nations to "stop the genocide of Turkish Cypriots" and declared, "Turkey has accepted a cease-fire, but will not allow Turkish Cypriots to be massacred."

The German newspaper Die Zeit wrote on Aug. 30, "The massacre of Turkish Cypriots in Paphos and Famagusta is the proof of how justified the Turks were to undertake their intervention."

"Turkish Cypriots, who had suffered from physical attacks since 1963, called on the guarantor powers to prevent a Greek conquest of the island. When Britain did nothing Turkey invaded Cyprus and occupied its northern part. Turkish Cypriots have constitutional right on their side and understandably fear a renewal of persecution if the Turkish army withdraws", the Daily Telegraph wrote on Aug. 15, 1996.

At last, peace for the Turkish Cypriots
"Turkey intervened to protect the lives and property of the Turkish-Cypriots, and to its credit it has done just that. In the 12 years since, there have been no killings and no massacres" Lord Willis (Labor) told the House of Lords on Dec. 17, 1986.

On March 12, 1977, Makarios declared, "It is in the name of ENOSIS that Cyprus has been destroyed."

The United Nations, the Commonwealth, and the rest of the world have put political expediency before principle and failed to condemn this appalling behavior. Greek Cypriots are guilty of attempted genocide but no action has ever been taken against them. Instead they have been rewarded by recognition as the government of all Cyprus. The Turkish Cypriots by contrast were frozen out of the United Nations, the Commonwealth and almost every other international organization.
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/578321/posts

End Part 3/3

Cheers.

[s3kiz]

At the bottom of this post is a map of Cyprus showing population movements and villages of Turkish Cypriot refugees forced to live between 1963-1974 as a result of Greek attempts to ethnically cleanse the island of its Turkish population, with ambitions of genocide and annexing the island to Greece.

Map of the Turkish enclave areas which constituted 3% of the island within which Turkish Cypriot people were forced to live between 1963-1974. Turkish Cypriot people who were forced to flee their homes, which constituted 30% of the island based on 1960 statistics, gathered within these enclaves and lived in harsh conditions of poverty, under inhumane embargoes imposed by the Greek Cypriots and were continually attacked until 1974 Turkish intervention as detailed in this thread.

Please enlarge the map to better see the legend and the markings on the map detailing this.

Please note that the red areas were populated by Turkish Cypriots, the white areas include regions of Greek Cypriot inhabitance AND non-inhabited lands, forest, valleys, desolate lands etc.

The blue line highlights the division boundries across the island which the Turkish peace intervention of 1974.

Prior to and during the 1974 Turkish peace initiative, some 90 000 Turks migrated to north and some 150 000 Greeks migrated to southern areas.

Those Greeks and Christians who wanted to stay in the northern Turkish area were allowed to stay by the 1974 Turkish peace initiative.

There are populations of Greeks and Maronite-Christian Cypriots, about 3,000, living in Rizokarpaso and Kormakitis regions with their own churches and religious/cultural events continued, under the administration of Turkish Republic of Northern Cyprus:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rizokarpaso
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kormakitis

Turkish Republic of Northern Cyprus proclaimed independence on 15 November 1983, after many failed attempts to reconcile the two communities. The latest such attempt was the 2004 UN Peace Plan instrumented by the Secretary General Kofi Annan, to bring a just bi-communal, equality, with the Greek side rejecting and the Turkish side accepting it.

http://www.kktcb.eu/index.php
http://www.trncinfo.com/
http://www.northcyprus.cc/

Turkish Republic of Northern Cyprus is also home to thousands of English, German, Irish citizens amoung many others who chose to settle and live in this country, many even taking up and becoming citizens of Turkish Republic of Northern Cyprus (TRNC).

http://www.north-cyprus-properties.com/
http://www.northcypruspropertiesagent.com/
http://www.cyprusnorthernproperty.com/
http://www.aboutnorthcyprus.com/

All in peace, since the 1974 Turkish peace initiative.

Cheers.

[chakos]

Before i make a comment id like to state that my background is Greek Cypriot albeit born and live in Australia (parents are 74 war refugees)

So we have discussed to death what has happened in the past, there will be no agreement on both sides regardless of what either party states or claims.

Lets talk about the future.. what does everyone here think will happen? How will this problem be resolved? And more importantly what terms will the solution have?

At the moment for the first time in a long time the Greek Cypriots hold the advantage. As a full EU member, an internationally recognised state, a wealthy country in its own right and just as importantly a Christian country at a time where there is much suspicion over Islamic countries (regardless how moderate these countries may be or the fact that they are notionally secular).

Greek Cyprus has already voted against reunification as it was not in the terms they had expected. The Greek side has (justifiably in my mind) increased its expectations of what terms the final settlement shall give them in line with the relative rise in the influence of the Greek Cyprus over Northern Cyprus (as much as i would prefer to call it 'occupied Cyprus' for the sake of keeping things civil i digress) :vamp

So... what next? what terms? and at what cost?

[wyoming cowboy]

Instead of regurgitating the information in this thread.

I will, with all respect, ask you if you have?
-Read this thread from the very beginning, in an attempt to “understand” whats written?
-Observed, checked, verified the evidence put forward?
-Attempted to grasp the origins, evolution and developments of this conflict?

Or,

Are you merely in state of reliance on the distorted perceptions (and falsely calimed) “Turkish invasion” of 1974?. Created due to the millenium old manipulative, devious and discoursive political games of Greeks, referred to in political literature as “Byzantine/Greek Intrigue”.

And is it because of this that, you and the other Greek poster on this thread “wyoming cowbow” are bringing forward:
-claims without evidence,
-trying to distort this threads topic by off-topic claims to cling on to and stir emotional propaganda inline with “yeah but we all know Turks are barbarians”
-twisting the dates of news articles,
-and bringing “maybe this”, “maybe that” kind of arguments without facts, which already have been comprehensively and clearly refuted with the evidence in this thread?

And posting such things to force the presented evidence to go back in the posting order, burried in the thread, perhaps in an attempt to censor as much as possible?

Like Glafcos Clerides said:
"I am sorry that it is wishful thinking and a false dream to believe.…..The things that count are arguments, not slogans."
("My Deposition" by Glafcos Clerides [former President of Greek Cypriot Republic of Cyprus], Vol.3 (referring to Greek politicians who try to manipulate word perceptions on the facts of Cyprus Conflict) ]



That is why I say that the Greeks should stop their political manipulations and realize the lies been made about this conflict.

And come to realize that they have;
-Done “lot of wrongs have been done to Turkish Cypriots”
-That“the Greek Cypriot side has tried to do away with the agreements”
-In an effort “to deprive the Turkish Cypriots from their rights,"
-and that "the Enosis(union with Greece) road was followed” causing this conflict and ethnic cleansing of Turks.
("My Deposition" by Glafcos Clerides [former President of Greek Cypriot Republic of Cyprus], Vol.3]

And see that peace comes with;
-Ending continued claims by Greeks to own whole of the island,
-Respect the Turkish Cypriots existance,
-Recognize that after all this conflict, that both sides of the island have the justfull right to go their own way.


I get confused sometimes too, but I easily overcome such confusions when I use my intellect and reach down my heart.

Cheers.The international community strongly condemned the Turkish invasion of Cyprus UN resolution353, that was adopted on the day of the invasion:"equally concerned about the necessity to restore constitutional structure of the Republic of Cyprus calls upon all states to respect the sovereignty of the Republic of Cyprus and its territory and demands an immediate end to foreign military intervention.

July 10 1976, The European Commission of Human Rights understands why the Greek cypriots of occuppied Cyprus fled their homes at the approach of the Turkish army"There are very strong indications of mass killings rapes savage torture of children women and pensioners as well as looting and robbery on an extensive scale by invading Turkish troops..

In the USA the 103rd congress H.R. 2826, passed on August 1,1994 orders Turkey to provide information of the whereabouts of US citizens who have been missing and last seen in the custody of Turkish troops during the invasion of 1974....


Currently 34 years later 40,000 Turkish troops illegally occuppy 37percent of Cyprus regardless of UN resolutions and world outcry..The Turkish forces deny access to the 200,000 Greek cyp refugees to their homes and properties. More then 150,000 Turkish settlers from anatolia Turkey have been imported into Cyprus, in direct violations of the Geneva convention..

UN Resolution 939/1994: "Reiterates that the current status quo and maintanance of foreign Turkish troops on Cyprus is unacceptable..."

Louzidou vs. Turkey: Mrs Louizidou a native of Kyrenia and a displaced refugee from the 1974 Turkish invasion of Cyprus, filed a lawsuit against Turkey in the European Court of Human Rights on July 22nd 1989, claiming her right to her property is denied By the precence of Turkish troops that occuppy Kyrenia...on July 28, 1998, the judgement came in and it favored Mrs Louizidou the court agreed with her in her claims and awarded her a sum of $900,000, the court specified that the amount was not a transfer of ownership but rather punitive damages against Turkey...Turkey to this date has not adhered to the courts judgement...

Obviously Turkey has no legal jurisdiction in the occuppied areas of Cyprus the only viable solution is the total withdraw of Turkish forces from the island and the return of all Greek cyp refugees to their ancestoral homes, since 3,500BC...

[chakos]

Wyoming cowboy its obvious why the Turkish side will never pay. By doing so they by definition accept the ruling of the court ergo accepting that the invasion of Cyprus was against international law.

Also if they do pay it will open a floodgate of litigation from the Greek Cypriot diaspora from around the world (my mothers family included) and would be both tremendously embaressing and tremendously expensive.

I find a lot of the Turkish arguments rather odd when i fail to see one significant international ruling in modern times that favours the Turkish occupation. Its not like the world has all of a sudden decided to pick on Turkey.

The basis of the UN resolutions as well as the rulings of the international courts is fact, not propaganda, not fiction, not slogans and not ideology from either side. :nutkick

[s3kiz]

If both of you followed the thread from the beginning, you would realize that the Cypriots Turks lived on all courners of the island prior to their migration to north of it.

And should realize that between these two, ie living anywhere/everywhere on the island to the establishments of north, these Turkish Cypriots were;

1)Forcefully stripped off their political rights as detailed in the 16 August 1960 Constitution of the (original) Republic of Cyprus and Lausanne, Nicosia and Zurich international agreements that gave both the Turkish and Greek side co-founding rights, co-soverightny, co-judicial rights over this new republic, and stripped of these rights by the political junta of the Greek sides against all international agreements and protests,

2)The Greek side physically drove, with killings of babies, children, women and burning over hundreds of Turkish villages in effect forcing them into enclaves making 3% of the island, which they once were on 30% of the island they legally owned in 1960 statistics and records,

3)That the UN intervened in 1964 to stop the ethnic cleansing of Turks by the Greeks,

4)That the UN, amoung with Red Cross, UK, USA, and many official leaders, authorities and international press were witness to the Greek attempts to ethnically cleanse the Turks, and many commented on this both in their parliamanets and UN,

5)That the military invasion from Greece happened with the sending of junta forces from Greece to annex the island to Greece,

6)That all this happened before the Turkish 1974 peace initiative,

If you didnt read the thread from the start you wouldnt know about all this.

But if you are aware of all these, you will realize the Turkish citizens of the Turkish Republic of Northern Cyprus have more legal weight in taking the Greek side to court and demanding compensation.

But that would be just playing with the legal loopholes, and not a sincere attempt to bring peace to the island.

Such Greek attempts are nothing but Byzantine/Greek Intrigue that I mentioned many times in this thread.

You want the Turkish side only as subservient to the Greek side, as minorities, even in 2008, just like since 1960s when Greek tried first tried to;

1)politically cleanse Turks of their right
2)demographically cleanse Turks, so they were reduced from 30% of the island to 3% lands,
3)ehtnically cleanse Turks, so that your saying of leaders to clean the island of Turks would come true,
4)and lie about it to the world manipulating everything, making white look black,

And its all documented.

There will be no peace like this.

Turkish Republic of Norther Cyprus will live, she deserves it more than anything.

Cheers.

[eliaslar]

Does anyone knows if there is any implication with the opening of Ledra's street barricade?
From what i read in the news lots of people Greek-cypriots and Turkish-cypriots go to the other side, mostly to find the friends from the other side of the wall, which they haven't seen since 1974.