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/pub...s_says_no_swift_troop_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_0626.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=9906E0D81638F933A25752C0A961958260

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]

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/..._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]

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]

wyoming cowboy

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]

wyoming cowboy

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]

wyoming cowboy

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..