From: varnavas@uxa.cso.uiuc.edu (varnavas constantine)
Newsgroups: soc.culture.greek
Subject: Re: Greek Logic
Date: 15 Oct 92 18:30:20 GMT
Article-I.D.: news.Bw6E2M.9r5
Organization: University of Illinois at Urbana

sadi@physics2 (Sadi Turgut) writes in response to Constantinos Caroutas:

>> 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.

What does this prove?  'In consultation' is a diplomatic term and in this
case means that the Greek, Turkish, and British Governments presented the
Agrrements to the Greek and Turkish Cypriots with a 'take it or leave it'
ultimatum.  Kranidioths, one of Makarios's advisers in Zurich, describes
extensively how Makarios agonized all night over this decision and the
pressure applied by the Greek government to accept the agreements.  Having
no other choice Makarios signed the Agreements.

>This is one thing that is invented
>by Enosis siders, to justify their claims. I can write what Akritas
>plan says about this point.

What is this "Akritas plan"?  You mentioned it in previous posts.  I have
never heard of it.  Can you post any details?

> 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.

The majority by which Makarios won is 60-65%, the smallest by which he ever
won an election.  Makarios was (and still is) a very popular figure among
Greek Cypriots.  The fact that he was elected by a majority reflects on many 
factors, including his personality.  I don't understand the extrapolation you
are pulling here:  There were many other issues in that election regarding
the FUTURE of Cyprus.  To say that the election was a referendum on the
Zurich Agreements is a stretch of the reality.

> 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.

Could it be because there were not enough qualified Turkish Cypriots to
fill 30% of the civil service positions because they are only 18% of the
population?  Anyway, do you have anything to support your claim?

> 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.

Above you claim that Makarios was for the Constitution and Independence
and so was the majority of the Greek Cypriots and this is why he was elected.
Now you claim that Makarios wanted to change the Constitution because he
didn't like it.  I cannot follow your logic.
Here it is worth mentioning the 13 points to see that they were aimed towards
unity of the two communities, fuctionality of the State which was paralyzed
after the Turkish Cypriot MPs vetoed the budget, and not towards exclusion
of the Turkish Cypriots.  In summary:

1.  The right of veto to be abondoned.
2.  The Vice President to substitute for the President in case of his temporary
    absence or incapacity to perform hid duties (whereas under the existing
    provisions the Greek President of the House of Representatives would
    substitute).
3.  The Greek President and the Turkish Vice President to be elcted by the
    House as a whole and not as under the Constitution (sepeartely).
4.  The Vice President of the House to deputize for the President of the House.
5.  The Constitutional provisions regarding separate majorities to be abolished.
6.  Unified Municipalities to be established.
7.  The administration of justice to be unified.
8.  The division of the Security Forces to be abolished.
9.  The numerical strength of the Security Forces and of the Defence Forces
    to be determined by a law.
10. The proportion of participation in the composition of the Public Service
    and the Forces of the Republic to be modified in proportion to the ratio of
    the population.
11. The number of the members of the Public Service Commision to be reduced
    from ten to five.
12. All decisions of the Public Service Commision to be taken by simple
    majority.
13. The Communal Chambers to be abolished and a new system to be devised.
    Should the Turkish Community, however, desire to retain its Chamber, such a
    course to be open to it.

Even though the proposals were submitted to the Turkish Cypriots, Turkey
rejected the proposals at once, before the Turkish Cypriots have decided.
The question I want to ask to Turkish Cypriots in the net is this:  How do
these proposals endanger the well being and the security of Turkish Cypriots?
These proposals were never discussed because the Turkish/Turkish Cypriot side
refused them before even discussing them.

> 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.

This is a lie.  The Turkish Cypriot officials withdrew from their offices.
Nobody forced them out.


> 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.)

Again, was Makarios for independence and the constitution or against it.  You
cannot make up your mind!

> 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
-- 
Constantinos Varnavas
University of Illinois