From: cc433336@LANCE.ColoState.Edu (Constantinos A. Caroutas)
Subject: Re: Greek Logic
Date: Fri, 09 Oct 1992 22:25:23 GMT
Organization: Colorado State U. Engineering College

In article <1b350vINNmls@agate.berkeley.edu>, sadi@physics3 (Sadi Turgut) 
writes:
>>> Sorry. For 18%, it meant exchange of colonizers for the worse.
>>
>>Colonizers? Get real.
>
> Perhaps it is time to look at the events from the Turkish point of
>view. What do you think?

Cyprus has been Greek for 29 centuries when the Turks came. Now the Turks
call the Greeks colonizers?

>>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. 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.

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.

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
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?
--
Constantinos A. Caroutas

"It's easy to make mistakes when others will be held responsible."
From: kk@hpl-opus.hpl.hp.com (Konstantinos Konstantinides)
Date: Thu, 15 Oct 1992 21:31:35 GMT
Subject: Re: Time Criticized??
Organization: HP Labs, High Speed Electronics Dept., Palo Alto, CA