From: cc433336@LANCE.ColoState.Edu (Constantinos A. Caroutas)
Subject: The Events in the Life of a Young Republic
Date: Fri, 16 Oct 1992 17:17:35 GMT
Organization: Colorado State U. Engineering College

In article <1bj6daINNb10@agate.berkeley.edu>, sadi@physics2 (Sadi Turgut)
writes:
>In article <Oct09.222523.83039@yuma.ACNS.ColoState.EDU> cc433336@LANCE.ColoState.Edu (Constantinos A. Caroutas) writes:
>> 
>> 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

And how do you know he was telling the truth? Such statements are common by
politicians. He was just trying to create a warm climate for the future of
the Republic of Cyprus.

>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.

Makarios did not like the agreements, but feared that rejecting them would
lead to partition. Was John Clerides the father of Glafkos Clerides? If
yes, he was a leftist and the left did not have enough votes to elect him.

> 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

It is difficult to fill 30 percent of the government positions from
the 18 percent of the population immediately without firing others or
busting your budget. Eventually (before 1970, I would hope), the
percentage would have been achieved.

>>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.

The Syrians maintain that there were objections...

>past, but I don't remember its significance. The National Guard, (which
>were composed large from the mainland soldiers)

This is not so. The excess Greek soldiers that had been on Cyprus for a
while were withdrawn in 1967. In 1974, the number of Greek soldiers on
Cyprus was that provided by the Treaty of Guarantee. And, they were not
in the National Guard, but in a separate entity.

>>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

If the Greeks were only 20 percent, do you think they should have a say?

>positive aspect for the Turkish Cypriots, and that is: They were called
>"Turkish Cypriots" instead of "Muslim Greeks."

The reason Muslim Greeks are not called Turkish is because not all are
Turkish. Some are Pomacs or gypsies.

I didn't respond to everything you wrote because of time limitations.
Anyway, discussions should be focused more to the future of Cyprus.
--
Constantinos A. Caroutas

"It's easy to make mistakes when others will be held responsible."