erolz
Site Admin
Joined: 11 Aug 2005
Posts: 4195
Location: Kyrenia / Girne
|
|
The recognition given to the all Greek Cypriot Republic of Cyprus by this resolution in March 64 was not only distaterous for the Turkish Cypriot community and their persuit of their legal and consitituional rights but was in fact disaterous for all Cypriots and in turn led to the failure of the two communites to agree a fair and workable settlement in the period 64-74 and thus also directly related to the events that took place in 74. If the two communites had managed to agree a solution pre 74, then even if the coup by Greek Cypriot and Greeks in 74 took place and Turkey intervened there would have been an agreed consitution to return to as opposed to a broken and defunct one that Turkish Cypriot or Turkey would not and could not simply 'restore'.
Thus the events of 64 and exactly how this resolution (186) was passed, granting as it ultimately came to be seen to do, recognition of the sole Greek Cypriot run Republic of Cyprus as the legitimate government of all Cypriots are imo of the utmost importance in understanding the Cyprus problem today and why it has become so intractable.
I must start with a referance to a document on the cyprus-conflict site that covers these issues. I would urge all who wish to understand the Turkish Cypriot perspective on the injustice of this resolution and it's subsequent interpretation to read this article in full.
http://www.cyprus-conflict.net/Moran%20-UN-64%20-%20pt1.htm
and a few 'highlights' from this paper to stimulate debate and for those who can not face the whole document itself.
| Quote: |
| By the fatal step of recognising the by then wholly Greek Cypriot administration in Cyprus as the legitimate government of the Republic, the Security Council contrived, through its rather casual reference to 'the government of Cyprus' in the 4 March resolution, to Obscure a fact of considerable significance. This was that 1964 saw the final breakdown of the Cyprus Republic. |
| Quote: |
| It is important to note at once that this particular resolution has played a crucial, and largely debilitating, role in all the subsequent UN negotiations on Cyprus. Its negative aspects were certainly clear enough. It gave international recognition to the wholly Greek Cypriot administration of Archbishop Makarios, in flagrant contradiction to the letter as well as the spirit of the 1960 Cyprus constitution; it gave that same Greek Cypriot administration the immediate responsibility of 'restoring law and order' in Cyprus, thus in effect permitting the Greeks in Cyprus to continue their ruthless policy of exterminating - and when not actually exterminating, at least marginalising through a variety of inhumane means - their Turkish compatriots; and it was the wording of that resolution which attempted, at any rate, in accordance with Greek Cypriot wishes, to sideline the Treaty of Guarantee, and hence Turkey's right to defend the Turks in Cyprus against these Greek atrocities. |
One can only imagine what would be the state of Cyprus today had this resolution not contain the implicit recognition of the by then all Greek Cypriot Republic of Cyprus but had been closer to the original proposed resolution of the UK and USA. I personally believe we would not be in the mess we are today had such occured and that there is a very high likelyhood that Greek Cypriot would not have lost what they did in 74.
| Quote: |
| It is most important to realise, too, that the Turkish Cypriots were never officially represented in the debating sessions. Denktash was allowed to speak - despite strong opposition from the Greek Cypriots, Greece, and the Soviet Union, who did not wish him to address the Council in any capacity - because the American delegation, headed by Adiai Stevenson, insisted that he should be. But Denktash1 was admitted to the Assembly only under rule 39, that is, not as a representative of his community in Cyprus but as a private individual. |
So from the very start only one community - the Greek Cypriot community had any offical voice in this most vital debate leading to resolution 186.
| Quote: |
| The most likely explanation for the Western powers' lack of perseverance [in getting a less Greek Cypriot biased resolution] is that they came to realise they could, in any case, get most of what they themselves wanted by supporting the resolution that was eventually proposed. In a moment we will have to look in more detail at these 'backstage' activities. |
The classic 'self interest' above 'doing what is right' implicit in interantional agreements and 'international law'.
| Quote: |
| ....in 1964, no one outside Turkey would have been particularly anxious about the fate of a mere 150,000 Turkish Cypriots had Cyprus not been regarded as strategically pivotal in the Cold War conflict, and because a war between Greece and Turkey would drastically have weakened NATO's eastern flank |
Again more 'reality' with regard to 'international justice' and 'international law'.
| Quote: |
However, I was able to ask Denktash himself about the 'backstage' activities at the UN in February/early March, 1964, and he made the following observations which contain at least one point of great interest:
The Turkish mission and I objected to the wording of the draft agreement [which eventually became the accepted UN resolution of 4 March, 1964] on the ground that Makarios would take full advantage of it. We stalled the passing of this draft for about a week. American and British diplomats assured us that the word 'government' in this draft meant the constitutional, bicommunal government. It is the Security Council which will interpret this resolution', they said. 'Do not waste time... it is Turkish Cypriot blood which is flowing in Cyprus and we are trying to do something about it.' We, the Turkish side, were not impressed. So the British and Americans worked through Ankara, complaining that we were wasting time unnecessarily. They assured Ankara that 'government' in the draft resolution meant, and would mean, the bicommunal government. On this assurance, Ankara caved in and the 4th March resolution was passed unanimously! |
In summary the UN resolution of 64 and it's subsequent interpretation that the all Greek Cypriot Republic of Cyprus was the legitimate government of all of Cyprus was a decsion that had nothing to do with 'justice' or the moral right of the claim of the all Greek Cypriot Republic of Cyprus to be the legitimate government of Cyprus, was flagrantly in disreagard to both the letter and the spirit of the consitituion of Cyprus, was the result of 'cleaver polticial manipulation' on the part of Greece and Greek Cypriot, was the result of UK and US political cynicism and self interest above the needs of justice and ultimately lead all Cypriots on a path of horrendous consquences for both communites and to a situation that seems as intractable today as it ever has.
In 65 the Turkish Cypriot community having finally realised the full extent of what had happened to them and their consitutional rights with the passing of resolution 186 tried to reverse these losses by requesting a return to their rightful places within the Republic of Cyprus and were once again let down and betrayed by the UN, in the face of the unacceptable conditions the then 'empowered' Greek Cypriot Republic of Cyprus placed on such a return. But this fir another thread and another day.[/quote] |
|
Register 
Log in 
Album 
Home 
