From: sadi@physics2 (Sadi Turgut)
Newsgroups: soc.culture.greek
Subject: Re: Greek Logic
Date: 15 Oct 1992 07:25:30 GMT
Organization: University of California, Berkeley
NNTP-Posting-Host: physics2.berkeley.edu

In article <Oct09.222523.83039@yuma.ACNS.ColoState.EDU> cc433336@LANCE.ColoState.Edu (Constantinos A. Caroutas) writes:
>
> >>Enosis was not the problem. Taksim was. The Turkish Cypriot leadership
> >>tried hard to pick a fight with the Greek Cypriots and justify a Turkish
> >>intervention. This is something said by the first Turkish ambassador to
> >>Cyprus. I can provide details if you missed my early September posting
> >>on this.
> >
> > Please do. Maybe we can compare it with the Akritas plan. Ah. Make
> >sure your details are not from misinformation center in South Nicosia.
> 
> Here they are:
> 
> The Cypriots never had a say regarding their Constitution.

 This is one of the things that you keep saying, but unfortunately
it is not true. First of all, there are statements by Greek Premier
and Foreign Minister, clearly demonstrating that the agreements
reached 'in consultation with the Cypriot leadership.' If you really
want, I can post some of them. This is one thing that is invented
by Enosis siders, to justify their claims. I can write what Akritas
plan says about this point.
 "(c) Although it was most difficult to attain the above objectives,
      satisfactory results have been achieved. Many diplomatic
      missions have already come to believe strongly that the
      Agreements are neither just nor satisfactory, that they were
      signed as a result of pressures and intimidations without real
      negotiations, and that they were imposed after many threats. It
      has been an important trump card in our hands that the
      solution brought by the agreements was not submitted to the
      approval of the people; acting wisely in this respect our
      leadership avoided holding a referandum. Otherwise, the
      people would have definitely approved the Agreements in the
      atmosphere that prevailed in 1959. Generally speaking, it has
      been shown that so far the administration of Cyprus has been
      carried out by Greeks and that the Turks played only a
      negative part acting as a brake.
  (d) ....."

 So, the plan says it all. In order to achieve Enosis, people should
 have been convinced that "The Cypriots never had a say regarding
 their Constitution." This argument sometimes reached to such funny
 proportions that, you can see people claiming that poor Greeks fought
 hard to achieve Enosis, but they instead gave them a mere
 "independence." I have never seen any other case, where independence
 is seen in such a negative light.

 So, how do you interpret, Makarios' avoiding referandum? Didn't
he want it to be interpreted as "it was imposed on the people"?

 Makarios prevented a referandum on Constitution, but made a "mistake"
in the first elections in 1959. In this election for
the first President of Cyprus, Makarios faced another candidate,
John Clerides, and the main issue at this election was the settlement
under the Zurich and London agreements. Makarios was campaigning for,
and Clerides was campaigning against the settlements. And Makarios won
by a big majority. This result can be interpreted as a "yes" vote on
the Agreements by the people.

> Britain had
> Turkey and Greece negotiate one and then gave it to the Cypriots. One
> of the articles of the Constitution provided that the five largest towns
> (Nicosia, Limassol, Famagusta, Laranca, and Paphos) should have separate
> municipalities. Further, each municipality should have its own territory
> of jurisdiction.
> 
> The President and the Vice President appointed a committee to determine
> the said territories. There was no disagreement regarding areas inhabited
> by Greeks or Turks only. But the Turkish side insisted that mixed areas
> should be under the Turkish Cypriot areas of jurisdiction. The Greek side
> rejected that, but the Turkish side would not accept less area than it
> demanded.
> 
> So, the President suggested to abandon the idea of separate municipalities
> and have mixed city councils with the Turkish Cypriots in control of the
> budgets. The Turkish side rejected the proposal, but accepted the
> suggestion of the President of the House of Representatives to form mixed
> councils as proposed on an experimental basis. A week later, the Turkish
> side changed its mind and returned to the old line, however.

 The Municipalities question was the main issue that caused the main
problems, but nevertheless, it was relatively unimportant. The first
frictions appeared much before. For example 30% ratio was never
fulfilled for the public services. I guess the Greek side maintains
that, as "asian" people, Turks did not have enough educated man,
so they were incapable of filling these positions. I personally find
this hard to believe. What really happened is, the Greek side wanted
to give a signal that the Constitution gave far greater rights to the
Turks, that under these conditions they cannot be implemented. Of
course, what happened is that, they didn't want it to be implemented.
So it was better for the Greeks who want Enosis that there are
problems arising from the Constitution. This would prove that the
Constitution is unworkable, and they will have a right to change it.

 Municipalities problem is one of them. I don't have much
information about the problem.(a little more than what you wrote.)
Especially, the position of the Turkish side is important to
understand why did they rejected a plan. Unfortunately, I am
not in a position to explain this, but I may do it at a later
time. 

 As I said, the President was determined not to give in to
the Turkish side, because this would help his cause. On 1963,
he said: "Even if the Constitutional Court says that what I am
doing [on municipalities] is unconstitutional, I will not respect
anything of those things." Then, the head of the Constitutional
Court resigned in the middle of 1963. This gave the first sign of
greater troubles that came eventually.

 Towards the end of 1963, he wrote his 13 point plan
and submitted to the Turkish side. The plan was proposing changes
in the Constitution, especially was amending the basic, unamendable
articles of the Constitution, such as the right of veto of the
vice-President on important decisions. Interestingly enough, the
plan was also proposing "unified municipalities." This was what
the discussion was about. Turks always sided with the "separate
municipalities." There is no way the Turkish side could accept this
plan. Eventually, a "No" would come, and Makarios knew this. This
is why he proposed.

 When the new year came, he declared that the Cyprus agreements
were no longer valid. By force, the vice-president and the Turkish
ministers were evicted from their offices.

 Then started the 11 year long torture. 

> This started causing friction which intensified when the Turkish Cypriot
> MPs killed a law of economic policy --according to the Constitution, such
> laws should be passed by separate majorities-- and as a result shut down
> the Government. They said that they did so because of the ongoing dispute
> about the separate municipalities, but it was really because they wanted
> to cause further friction.
> 
> These abuses of the Constitution by the Turkish Cypriots led to armed
> conflict and Turkey prepared to invade in 1964 and partition Cyprus.

 Sure. Why did Makarios suspend the Constitution in the first
 place? Didn't he know that, he was giving a reason for Turkish
 intervention?

> That the Turkish Cypriots abused the Constitution was one of the
> complaints of the first Turkish Ambassador to Cyprus. He accused the
> Turkish Cypriot leadership of picking fights with the Greeks on issues
> of no importance. And so busy was the Turkish Cypriot leadership doing

 I didn't understand how does this prove your point. Is this the
 ambassodor of an evil country which always wanted to partition the
 island? (And for this abused the Constitution.) Look at this, the
 ambassodor can freely critisize the Turkish leadership. If the same
 were done for the Greek side, maybe we wouldn't be where we are now.

 By the way, I congratulate the Turkish ambassador.

> that that they did not attend to the needs of their community. For example,
> funds appropriated by the Government to be used for the Turkish Cypriot
> community idled in the bank.
> 
> Regarding the accusation that the Greek side did not intend to respect
> the Constitution, consider this: After the first elections, but before
> the British surrendered power, the British caught a Turkish ship
> gunrunning to Cyprus. How would you have felt when you heard this news
> if you were a Greek Cypriot?

 Sure, I would understand their feelings. But, you must accept that
 these feelings were felt by the Turkish Cypriots too. Four months
 before the declaration of independence, by a speech, Makarios already
 showed his intents (that independance is not the goal and their
 struggle will continue. That he is determined to eliminate the
 "negative" aspects of the Constitution.)

<Oct09.195708.86363@yuma.ACNS.ColoState.EDU>
>> Some numbers: In the 1960 census, the Greek Cypriots made up of 77%
>>of the island. Since the 1950 "plebiscite" claimed 96% Greek Cypriots
>>supported Enosis, this makes up only 74% of the island population. Well,
>
>Only 74 percent? Wasn't that enough? Hatay was only 60 percent Turkish
>and it was all right to unite itself with Turkey.

 Because, nobody else objected it. If I knew that, it would cause
bloodshed ( as in Cyprus ) I would object it. I am completely indifferent
to independence and union. (If there are economic advantages, then I
would prefer union, which might have been the case in Hatay.) What
is wrong with independance?

>>arranged by the Greek Junta, to fasten the Enosis Process, and to
>>increase the prestige of the Greek Junta at home. This act was perceived
>
>Tell me then why the National Guard did not engage the invading troops
>immediately. They knew 24 hours in advance that the Turkish troops were
>coming. Tell me why Greece did not sent troops to Cyprus right after the
>coup in case Turkey invaded.

 Is there some fine point here? I remember this being discussed in the
past, but I don't remember its significance. The National Guard, (which
were composed large from the mainland soldiers) were busy with massacring
Makarios supporters. A large number of people were already arrested, and
Coup was getting the  upper hand. When they heard the Turkish intervention,
they started to collect Turkish men as hostages and imprisoned them in
available Stadiums. But, the Guard engaged the Turkish soldiers, as soon
as they set foot on the island.

 On the other hand, the Turkish army was ready for any intervention from
Greece. However, Greece couldn't decide quickly, as a war with Turkey was
at stake. It is known that, this is discussed by the Junta, and Sampson was
expecting a help from mainland. But, it didn't come.

<Oct10.022652.64872@yuma.ACNS.ColoState.EDU>
>By the way, the argument someone brought that 100 percent of Cypriots
>should want enosis for it to happen is ridiculous. The majority can do
>whatever it wants, except discriminate against the minority. Enosis with
>Greece would not be discrimination.

 Well. This is what I was trying to say all along. For the Turks, a change
of rulers from Britain to Greece is completely undesirable. If you want to
understand why, ask yourself what would the Greeks think, if the island
was given to Turkey instead. The whole Cyprus conflict had at least one
positive aspect for the Turkish Cypriots, and that is: They were called
"Turkish Cypriots" instead of "Muslim Greeks."

> Constantinos A. Caroutas

 Sadi Turgut
-- 
  The Greeks have survived in spite of all the world could
do against them, and all they could do against themselves.
              --Sir Winston Churchill