The conflict in Cyprus did not begin in mid 1950’s but began with an idea called Enosis, unification of Cyprus with Greece.
This idea was seeded in Cyprus as early as 1879, when the British allowed Greeks to settle on the island in “patriotic communities.” Soon after, Greek patriotism flourished in the island and sneaked into churches and schools. The actual roots of Cyprus problem goes back as far as to late 1800’s but not 1974.
Since early 1900’s, the Greek Cypriots were geared for Enosis and opposed to the coexistence of Turkish Cypriots.
In 1959 the motherlands of both people and Britain provided Cyprus with a constitution that was not only agreed upon by all parties, but also provided for the existence of a Republic, where Turks and Greeks would have equal rights and a say over their own people.
Most people talk about Greek Cypriot sufferings as a result of the coup d’etat that overthrew Makarios and from Turkey’s intervention, but it seems they have no idea about the Turkish Cypriots sufferings.
Their knowledge is in lack of the period prior to the 1974 intervention, where the Greek Cypriots were orchestrating genocidal policies against Turkish Cypriots over a period of eleven years, starting from 1963.
During this notorious period, 103 Turkish Cypriot villages were completely destroyed and hundreds of Turkish Cypriots massacred and buried in mass graves by the Greek Cypriots.
Under the Akritas Plan, which it’s drafting was completed as early as 1961, the Greek Cypriots sought to annihilate the entire Turkish Cypriot population on Cyprus and accordingly attacks to Turkish Cypriots started on December 20, 1963. This atrocious night is known as “Bloody Christmas”, in Turkish Cypriot history and over 600 innocent Turkish Cypriot men, women, and children were ruthlessly slaughtered in one single night .
As a result of such grave human rights abuses, the Turkish Cypriots were forced to withdraw into small enclaves, almost 60,000 Turkish Cypriots left their homes, belongings, memories and sheltered in safe areas to save their lives. In these enclaves their fundamental human rights were severely restricted and they lived out their lives as refugees within their own country. They had no access to most of life’s basic necessities, had no political representation, and were exposed to constant violence and harassment regulated by the Greek Cypriot leadership.
The goal of the Greek Cypriot leadership under Makarios, was to force all Turkish Cypriots off of the island, either by brute force or by implementation of inhuman living conditions.
But the pace of Makarios for ethnic cleansing of Turkish Cypriots was not fast enough for the Junta Generals in Greece and this led to the Greek Cypriot National Guards overthrowing Makarios in a coup d’etat on July 15, 1974, under the command of Greek officers and support of Greek troops from Greece.
From this point onwards, things changed dramatically in the island. Turkey had to intervene to save the lives of Turkish Cypriots, as the speed of the genocide would get accelerated, after the declaration of “Cyprus Hellenic Republic” in July 16, 1974, by the notorious human butcher Nichos Sampson, a right wing Greek operative, installed by the Greek junta as the president to the unilaterally declared new republic.
It is a solid fact that the Turkish Cypriots had been struggling for ages to live in peace in the island but instead, forced by their adver-saries to rely on the armed forces and get cohered to their motherland Turkey.
Ata ATUN
ata@kk.tc
http://www.ataatun.com
September 21, 2012
Talks on federation are recently occupying the Greek side.
In actual fact they have no intention of reaching an agreement or establishing a partnership with the Turkish Cypriots.
The proof of this is the referendum results on the Annan-Plan of 20th April 2004. Greeks voted 75% against a united-federated Cyprus Republic with the Turkish Cypriots.
Actually, from the Turkish Cypriot point of view, it was good that they said “no”! Otherwise, Turkish troops would have left the island, 2/5 of Northern Cyprus would have been occupied by some 160.000 Greek settlers, and the Turkish Cypriots would have fallen under a pseudo majority. The Turkish Cypriots would then not be “living” but “suffering”.
The Turkish Cypriots would conveniently be used as scape goats for the Greek Cypriot economical failure and bankcruptcy. They would be punished and made to suffer just as in the pre 1974 era.
They would never say; ” we ruined the economy due to our laziness and incompetence” but rather “We went bust because of the enormous load of carrying the Turkish Cypriots”, and hence accuse the Turks and convince the world with their lies.
The Turkish Cypriots would probably cry about loosing their hard earned Republic and sovereignty. That ugly development would have made them slaves. Thank God that due to Papadopullos’ greed and ambition to grab the whole island, they were saved on the last moment from the deadly results of the so-called Annan-Plan.
Greeks have a fantastic ability to manipulate international opinion, change agreements to suit their wishes and sell themselves as totally innocent. They first convince themselves, and then convince others without reasoning or justification.
The high level agreement signed by Makarios and Denktash and witnessed by UN- Secretary General, Dr. Kurt Waldheim on the 12th February 1997, constituted the first high-level agreement which had for seen in principle; a bi-zonal, bi-communal and politically equal federation of two states.
The bi-zonal and bi-communal aspects of that agreement were clearly specified under article 2 of the same. This article also stated that each zone would be under the rule of the respective side and should be evaluated in the light of economic output, sustainability and property ownership. In other words, it was absolutely clear that one part would be under Turkish and the other under Greek rule.
After that, in all attempts to reach a solution, the UN have defined the possible future federation as bi-zonal and bi-communal.
The Greek political leadership is now desperately trying to deny this. Among those denying this fact is the head of the Greek Ortgodox church, Archbishop Chrisostomos II. Hrisostomos must have contacts to the other world to be able to claim that; ” had Makarios lived a little longer, he would have found a way of denying and rejecting the idea of federation”.
Important is also the efforts by the Greek Cypriot head of Parliament, Mr. Omirou, and Presidential Candidate Lillikas to deny any idea of federation.
Personally, I believe that the UN is wasting her time trying to build a united, federal-Cyprus Republic on the island of Cyprus. It is obvious that the Greeks have no such intention. Even though this is known to us, it is amazing that they cannot hide their intentions.
Ata ATUN
ata.atun@atun.com
http://www.ataatun.com
September 14, 2012
Current and future developments in Syria are written in her history.
It is also not necessary to go back too far, her recent history speaks for itself.
The Syrian people, wishing to free themselves from the French colonial rule
of the years 1920 – 1946, ceased the opportunity in 1943, following the German
occupation of France, and started an uprising.
In the preceeding two years, France had enough, but as she did not want to leave Syria
without securing some advantages for herself, in May 1945 the uprising against French
colonial administration spread to the major cyties such as Damascu s, Aleppo, Humus and Ham.
By 1946, France could not suppress the country-wide uprising and was eventually forced to
withdraw from Syria completely.
The newly born Syrian state under the leadership of Shukru el- Kuvvetly, was faced with a massive
battle of power and self-interest. Once the military and economic power of French colonialism was
gone, independence threw the country into a religious and ethnical turmoil and yet another civil war.
The result of these developments was a series of militaty take-overs.
Syria went through these developoments only 50-60 years ago. A serious struggle among the
rich families of Aleppo who controlled the military, the centuries long, influential politicians of Damscus,
tribal leaders in rural areas, Alevis, Sunnis, Christians and the influential Nusayris took place in
Syria.
Following the end of the Ottoman and French rule, a Syrian state under the name of “Syria” came
into being as a political entity, however, never managed to become a homogenious, nation-state based on mutual
undertsanding and power- sharing.
Exactly for this reason, when Bashir Assad goes, the events of half a century ago will emerge just as
in the past. This is Syria’s inevitable future.
It is also obvious that the Baathists will not return to power. Sooner or later, the new Syrian
Administration will want to punish all the Baathists captured.
Russia is fully aware of all this, and hence in view of above mentioned factors, will not wish to loose
her naval base in Latakia wich was achieved by the Syrian-Russian friendship agreements between
Hafiz Assad and Russia. Particulary in the face of the oil- and gas fields in the Eastern Mediterranian,
Russia would not wish to leave this area.
The reason for the increased military presence in the Eastern Mediterranian, is not the Syrian
state of war but the need to safeguard and controll the energy deposits.
In this respect, the only place where Russia could obtain a foot hold is Southern Cyprus.
The economic collapse of the Greek side, has served the Russian appetite in thinking that she can buy
certain previllages in Southern Cyprus.
Russia started with Greece first by buying into Greek companies dealing with energy, and by
placing her men into leading managemnet positions. Russsia is now offering a five billion euro
deal for the strategic control of the oil- and gas pipeline between Greece and Cyprus.
The Greek Cypriot side, following her exclusive territorial rights agreement with Israel,
Andreas Papandreou- military Airfield for the French, Russian naval bases in Mari and Zigi,
and previllages for Iran, has turned into the “Lady with Seven Husbands”.
If our Southern neighbours eventually fall into a minority position within their own country,
it should not surprise us.
Ata ATUN
ata.atun@atun.com
http://www.ataatun.com
September xx, 2012
Todays Zaman, January 21, 2008
http://www.todayszaman.com/columnist-132045-cyprus-history-from-1960-to-2008-10.html
While Archbishop Makarios was making clear his thoughts on the future of Cyprus, similar statements were also being made by Greek leaders in Greece. Some 15,000 Greek troops had actually occupied Cyprus since 1964.
Greece and Makarios were confident that Turkey could not risk a major war with Greece in order to save Turkish Cypriots and their rights in the face of such military reality.
Indeed the two partners knew of the anxiety of the US government about a Greco-Turkish war and its repercussions on the NATO alliance and banked on the knowledge that any attempt by Turkey to come to the aid of Turkish Cypriots would be prevented by US action.
Only a few days into 1965, Makarios received some bad news. The Soviet delegation officially announced the existence of “two communities” with sovereignty and legal rights on the island. Following this bad news, a series of top-level reciprocal visits took place between the Soviet Union and Turkish politicians and bureaucrats in 1965, which softened the strong and blind support of the Soviets for the Greek government of Cyprus and of Archbishop Makarios.
On Feb. 5, 1965, the Cyprus Mail newspaper was to report this gem from Makarios: “Their presence in Cyprus (the Greek mainland army divisions) is evidence not only of the support but of the presence of Greece in Cyprus, and that the struggle is common, and so are the aims.”
He made his point even clearer on March 1, 1965, by saying, “Cyprus is part of Greece and enosis is written in the future of Cyprus… the goal of our struggle is enosis.”
On April 27, 1965, at Limassol Stadium surrounded by Greek mainland officers, Makarios, accompanied by the ambassador of Greece, drew wild cheers from his listeners as he announced: “The ideal is enosis… which has not yet been realized. But the struggle for its realization continues and will continue! … and no power in the world, no adversity, no obstacle, can deflect us from this destiny.”
In the meantime, combined Greek mainland and Greek Cypriot forces were harassing the Turks of Cyprus, and at the UN the representatives of Greece and of the Greek Cypriot administration were acting in concert to conceal the fact that their actions in Cyprus were aimed at doing away with its independence.
A smokescreen was raised to make it look as if Turkish Cypriots and Turkey were trying to partition the island and were the cause of all the trouble. The UN was repeatedly invited “to stop Turkey from interfering in the internal affairs of Cyprus, an independent republic whose independence was being continuously threatened by Turkey.”
It is crystal clear that everything that happened in Cyprus was the result of the combined efforts of Greek and Greek Cypriot leaders. There would have been no trouble, no inter-communal conflict or civil war in 1963 had Greece not been involved. And the trouble would not have continued the way it did had Greece backed out of this plan to destroy the republic and achieve enosis by a series of illegal and inhuman acts. But Greece was in up to its neck and saw no reason for withdrawing.
As an aside, here is a reminder that “the union of Cyprus with Greece, enosis,” is part of a bigger plan which has been successfully implemented for more than a century. On July 29, 1970, a group of Greek tourists from the island of Rhodes came to Cyprus. Makarios addressed them, saying: “The hearts of Greek Cyprus, of Rhodes and of all Dodecanese islands have a common beat. You have achieved your aspirations, but we, beset by difficulties and frustrated by foreign meddlers, are still struggling for ours. Bet despite all difficulties Cyprus will march on to Hellenism.”
At the United Nations, and within the Afro-Asian group, Makarios’ representatives were urging their listeners that the struggle in Cyprus was “for full independence and self-determination.” For years and years they managed to deceive these people with such disinformation. The Greek mainland representatives were in full agreement and support.
Shipments of Soviet arms and ammunition to Cyprus continued until May 1965 and then apparently stopped.
Today’s Zaman, January 19, 2008
http://www.todayszaman.com/columnist-131945-cyprus-history-from-1960-to-2008-9.html
This degrading retreat forced Gen. Georgio Grivas to abandon his dreams of taking the Erenköy beachhead from the Turkish Cypriots. The UN called for a cease-fire and it was agreed to by both parties.
The various statements made by Archbishop Makarios in 1964 clearly explain the cause of the conflict on the island and his dream of taking a seat in history as the “architect of enosis” (or union with mainland Greece). On March 25, 1964, in a statement to German daily Sudetendeutsche Zeitung, he said, “With regard to the solution of the Cyprus problem, the union of Cyprus with Greece is the wish of the Cypriot people and myself.”
On Aug. 21, 1964 he declared to the Mahi newspaper: “My ambition is to accomplish the union of Cyprus with Greece. … I will unite integrally with Greece and then the borders of Greece will extend to the shores of North Africa.”
On Sept. 20, 1964 he told The Washington Post: “I want something higher than being a temporary president of Cyprus. My ambition is to connect my name with history as the architect of enosis.”
The basics of the “Megali Idea,” or Great Idea, can easily be seen in his statements. It was only three years before that he had sworn officially and publicly to keep and cherish “the independence of Cyprus.” But his real dream was to bury the Republic of Cyprus and realize Greece’s dream of enosis.
Had the 1960 independence been believed in by the Greek Cypriots and accepted as an end in itself, there would be no Cyprus problem today.
Speaking at the Paralimni Church on Sept. 3, 1964, Makarios said: “What is our desire? We have proclaimed it many times: Our union with the motherland, eternal Greece. What will our reply be if such a solution is made difficult and if some think compromises are required or that something should be given in return? ‘No,’ is the reply, and the struggle will continue until full justification.”
This is the main reason the Cyprus problem has still not been settled today, in the year 2008. Nothing will change until Greek Cypriot leaders and leading politicians change their minds and abandon the holy oath of Makarios given to the Orthodox Church of Cyprus in the year 1950.
The attacks in the year 1963 and 1964 were a combined effort of secret Greek Cypriot armies, the Greek Cypriot police and mainland Greek officers. Greece always took the side of Makarios, politically and militarily.
The onslaught on the Turkish Community was, according to Greek Prime Minister Andreas Papandreu, “no onslaught at all.” The Greek side maintained, “It is not a cause for action under the Treaty of Guarantee for the Preservation of Independence.”
Each time Turkey moved to prevent a bloodbath in Cyprus, Greek representatives joined with the Greek Cypriot leadership in protesting against “outside interference in the internal affairs of Cyprus.”
According to Greece, the elimination of Turks from Cyprus (under the false claim that the Turks had rebelled) was an internal affair for Makarios, and Turkey had no right, moral or otherwise, to come to the aid of the Turkish Cypriots. But Greece itself was already in Cyprus — at the invitation of Makarios — with 15,000 Greek troops.
And at a luncheon party in honor of the visiting Greek defense minister on Oct. 27, 1964, Archbishop Makarios was quoted in the local press as follows: “Greece has become Cyprus and Cyprus is Greece. I firmly believe that the Pan-Hellenic struggle for the union of Cyprus with fatherland Greece will shortly be crowned with success, and its success will serve as the beginning of a new era of Greek grandeur and glory.”
Turkey, fully aware of the complicity of the Greek Government in this diabolical plan to unite Cyprus with Greece, raised its voice in conjunction with the Turkish Cypriots. Turkish officials stated: “If union with Greece was the aim, then the Turkish Cypriots should be left out of it. … Turkish Cypriots, who owned 30 percent of the registered land and were one-fifth of the population of Cyprus, did not want to be colonized by Greece. They must cede to Turkey.” The clear answer and reaction to enosis was a double-enosis.
This Turkish answer to enosis, which Greece was actively pursuing in Cyprus, was to be used over and over again both by Greece and Greek Cypriot leaders “as proof of the partitionist aims of Turkey”! And Makarios was to clearly come out with his objection to giving any rights to the Turks in Cyprus in November 1964.
On Nov. 21, 1964, Archbishop Makarios said to the Phileleftheros newspaper: “I am for enosis and shall always stand for it. But it must be genuine enosis without curbs or strings.” Any right recognized for the Turks in Cyprus in return for agreeing to enosis would detract from the genuineness of enosis. On Nov. 24, 1964, he made his point even more clear. “I emphasized that the union of Cyprus with Greece must be a union of the whole island, including all areas.”
