| Author |
Message |
pg
Deputy
Joined: 17 Jan 2006
Posts: 1485
Location: Cyprus
|
|
| Mete wrote: |
Let me repeat one more time: let's stick with the topic and start a new thread for the other issue if you're interested in discussing that. |
I just thought it was relevant to trying to define "the topic" a bit better - as outlined in the post just below yours.
Basically, is it possible that Turkish Cypriot leaders that ban their subjects from associating with Greek Cypriot at the same time asks that these subjects should be governed by the Republic of Cyprus?
I am still looking forward to the "facts" as stated in those reports, although I suspect we will not be able to 'pass a judgement' on what happened than what I have been trying to outline. |
|
| Back to top |
|
erolz
Site Admin
Joined: 11 Aug 2005
Posts: 4211
Location: Kyrenia / Girne
|
|
| pg wrote: |
Considering the items I have listed above it seems to me your uncle would have feared fanatics from both sides - since influential fanatics on both sides wanted the separation to happen.
If Turkish Cypriots knew they had about 50% change to be murdered by a Greek Cypriot and 50% chance to be murdered by a Turkish Cypriot... I see bloody big chance they would... ... ... prefer to move to Australia instead. |
PG I am not disputing that Turkish Cypriot killed Turkish Cypriot (and Greek Cypriot killed Greek Cypriot) but your assessment is not quite correct imo. The reality was back then that if you opposed your sides official doctrines you had as much or even greater chance of being murdered by your own side as the other but if you were not 'political' and an 'innocent' you had a much greater chance of being murdered by fanatics of the other community. This was the case with my uncle. His continuing to go to work in dangerous Greek Cypriot controlled areas was not a political statement and not did he challenge the Turkish Cypriot leadership in any way. He continued to go to work despite the risk because he had a good job (assistant manager in Barclays bank) and had a young family to support. I am not aware that he felt or came under any pressure or threats from Turkish Cypriot for continuing to go to work. He was generally respected in both communities as I understand things. However I do know that every time there was an outbreak of violence our whole family feared for his safety, for reprisal attacks were common and these attacks invariably did not target 'extremists' but innocent soft targets , which my uncle was because of his determination to continue to work despite the risks. |
|
| Back to top |
|
erolz
Site Admin
Joined: 11 Aug 2005
Posts: 4211
Location: Kyrenia / Girne
|
|
| pg wrote: |
| So, the question for 1965 should be both if the Turkish Cypriot wanted to govern, and also if they wanted to be governed by the Republic of Cyprus. |
The question is not did they want to govern or to both govern and be governed (imo). The question was under WHICH Republic of Cyprus were they to govern and be governed. The legal agreed constitutional one ( where they had a RIGHT to block things like budget) or one where these legal constitutional agreed rights had been removed without their consent. That is the issue imo.
| pg wrote: |
I can see Clerides, et al, thinking that if the Turkish Cypriot come back, they will again block the budget and everything else..., until the parliament enacts laws that implements a physical separation of the communities. |
I can see Clerides thinking that there was currently a Greek Cypriot only run and dominated Republic of Cyprus that had essentially gained recognition as 'legitimate' and had effectively (despite all legality) removed major planks of the Turkish Cypriot communal rights under 60's agreements without their permission and was about to remove more and that given this reality the only way Turkish Cypriot should be allowed back into government was if they accepted these amendments that limited their communal rights despite them having had no say in such amendments and them having existing legal rights to such a say.
What happened is like saying this 'system' is flawed (constitution / law / whatever). We will amend it (the law / constitution / whatever) but we will decide whether to make the amendment under the NEW AMENDED system not the existing one, because the existing one is flawed. Such an approach may be expedient to certain interests that want such change but it is not a valid approach legally or morally. |
|
| Back to top |
|
pg
Deputy
Joined: 17 Jan 2006
Posts: 1485
Location: Cyprus
|
|
| So, the question of this thread is then: Did the Turkish Cypriot leadership in 1965 wish to return to the 1960 constitutional order? |
|
| Back to top |
|
Mete
Warnings : 3
Deputy
Joined: 16 Aug 2005
Posts: 1150
Location: Boston
|
|
| pg wrote: |
So, the question of this thread is then: Did the Turkish Cypriot leadership in 1965 wish to return to the 1960 constitutional order?
|
Yes, this is the initial goal. Once we tackle this question (with proof from unbiased resources that I hope to get this weekend) we can extend the topic in other subtopics (like if some elements within the Turkish Cypriot community tried to stay away from the Republic of Cyprus as well) |
|
| Back to top |
|
stavrizatz
Mukhtar/is
Joined: 20 Feb 2006
Posts: 952
Location: Australia / Lefkosia
|
|
Cypez wrote:
| Quote: |
both
both. (even though here force came from the fear from Greek Cypriot, as well as pressure from Turkish Cypriot extremists) |
From what I understand it was both, but I form my opinion based on other opinion, I can't really take a point of view. Turkish Cypriots constantly say they fleed to survive the genocide! That imo is an absolut fabrication. On the other hand our side sais that Turkish Cypriots withdrew.
Erolz wrote:
| Quote: |
The specific passage is in section 31 where is says
|
Thanks, I must off skipped that part. But it is not very clear whether if they got refuced to return. Well the way the authors of the paper present it is that Greek Cypriots black mailed them that they could return with a condition that they accepted the legislative changes. If that is the case then that is wrong. However if they returned to their positions and then they refused to recognise any changes in their absense and they withdrew again, then there is a slight difference!
Erolz wrote:
| Quote: |
| My uncle for example continued to goto his (civilian) job that was in Greek Cypriot controlled areas against all the advice from the Turkish Cypriot leadership to not do so and in 64 he was abducted from his place of work and murdered. |
Was he murdered by Turkish Cypriots or Greek Cypriots? From what I understand a significant number of Turkish Cypriots who got killed at the time, got killed by their own men. Either way it is quite sad
Erolz wrote:
| Quote: |
| One could ask where the rebellious and partitionist moves of the Turkish Cypriot leadership of the time a reaction to the Greek Cypriot leadership attempts to subvert core elements of the constitution and agreements in order to gain dominance over Cyprus, or were they acts created in a vacum that would have been pursued in largely the same manner regardless of how the Greek Cypriot leadership behaved ? |
Exactly, so what do you believe?
I believe that the pro-partition Turkish Cypriots that was a minority within the whole Turkish Cypriot community were going to behave in the same matter regardless of how Greek Cypriot leadership behaved. The ammendments I think were just an excuse or an opportunity for that group to impose partition.
Erolz wrote:
| Quote: |
| As I have said ANY source must be viewed in the context of who has written it and why. It should also be pointed out that select committees are independent of the government in the UK and are supposed to be above party politics. They take evidence and submission from a range of interested parties, can conduct their own research and investigation and they then balance and weigh the evidence they have heard and report on their conclusions. For me such a report is inherently more balanced re either the Turkish Cypriot or Greek Cypriot pov than one from the Republic of Cyprus or Turkey. It may not be more balanced re a British pov but is is more balanced re a Greek Cypriot / Turkish Cypriot point of view. The same is true of UN reports , they may well hold a pov that favors the UN but in terms of a Greek Cypriot/Turkish Cypriot pov they are more balanced that either a Turkish Cypriot or Greek Cypriot source. |
Ok, I was not saying that they were not objective, I actually believe it was a quite balanced report, but some points I could see the British point of view, such as "The British forces in Cyprus eventually intervened to establish the "Green Line" in Nicosia, and in March 1964, on a British initiative, the United Nations Force in Cyprus was established to "dissuade" the two communities from violence" or "the Greek Cypriot legislature unanimously passed a resolution in favour of Enosis, in blatant contravention of the 1960 Treaties and Constitution." forgeting that the agreements themselves by forbitting enosis were in 'blatant contravention of the UN. |
|
| Back to top |
|
stavrizatz
Mukhtar/is
Joined: 20 Feb 2006
Posts: 952
Location: Australia / Lefkosia
|
|
Erolz wrote:
| Quote: |
| One could ask where the rebellious and partitionist moves of the Turkish Cypriot leadership of the time a reaction to the Greek Cypriot leadership attempts to subvert core elements of the constitution and agreements in order to gain dominance over Cyprus, or were they acts created in a vacum that would have been pursued in largely the same manner regardless of how the Greek Cypriot leadership behaved ? |
Actually I'll start a new thread on this, let this be on whether if Turkish Cypriots tried to return to their positions in 1965.
So i'll add some more questions...
Why did Turkish Cypriots want to return to their seats?
How many of them?
Were they refused to return? if yes, why?
Were there other attempts to return?
What about the Turkish Cypriots that got into the government today? |
|
| Back to top |
|
pg
Deputy
Joined: 17 Jan 2006
Posts: 1485
Location: Cyprus
|
|
| Mete wrote: |
| pg wrote: |
So, the question of this thread is then: Did the Turkish Cypriot leadership in 1965 wish to return to the 1960 constitutional order?
|
Yes, this is the initial goal. Once we tackle this question (with proof from unbiased resources that I hope to get this weekend) we can extend the topic in other subtopics (like if some elements within the Turkish Cypriot community tried to stay away from the Republic of Cyprus as well) |
My point was just to try to clarify if the Turkish Cypriot leadership just wanted to return to the government, or if they wanted to return to the full constitutional order (remove all paramilitary groups (TMT) etc. |
|
| Back to top |
|
Mete
Warnings : 3
Deputy
Joined: 16 Aug 2005
Posts: 1150
Location: Boston
|
|
Today I went to the Boston public library in order to get those two reports Erol mentioned. Unfortunately I wasn't successful. -
Since these reports are so old, I had to wait for an hour for them to retrieve the relevant books from special collections. I finally had access to the UN Security Council session notes (which were interesting) from 1963,64, and 65 but apparently the reports Erol mentioned are "Supplement reports" so they weren't in those books. I also had access to supplement reports from 1963 but they couldn't find supplement reports from 1965. I think they have them but the librarians were getting fed up with me after a while and I don't think they were happy about working on a Saturday 
Anyhow, that was disappointing but Harvard library also has these reports. I'm hoping that they're more organized. So I plan to visit them next weekend if I can. I'll let you know what I find there.
Apart from that, it was interesting to read Security Council sessions from late 1963 and early 1964. I've read speeches of Kyprianu, Denktash and Greek/Turkish representatives. One thing that struck me was how concerned Kyprianu was about the possibility of a Turkish invasion. Kyprianu kept talking about how Turkey is getting ready for an invasion and so on. It's interesting that even in 1964, Greek Cypriots were very concerned with the possibility of an invasion and yet again they continued the same mistakes over the years which ended up with the 1974 tragedy. Also lots of the talk by Kyprianu centered around how the 1960 treaties were not functional and that was given as a reason to the violence. You really get a sense that Greek Cypriots were not really happy about these treaties. Finally, there was a letter from Kutchuk to Makarios and he was telling Makarios how Makarios never believed in the new republic. Kutchuk was saying that he offered many times to Makarios to go to bicommunal villages and tell Greek Cypriot and Turkish Cypriot villagers that they should work together peacefully but apparently Makarios rejected and Kutchuk went to these villages himself. Another thing I didn't know was right after 1963 events, Kutchuk recorded a speech asking Turkish Cypriots to be calm and avoid violence but apparently this wasn't put on the national radio by Greek Cypriots.
Anyway, not related to the topic but wanted to share some things that I learned today. |
|
| Back to top |
|
erolz
Site Admin
Joined: 11 Aug 2005
Posts: 4211
Location: Kyrenia / Girne
|
|
Thanks for your efforts Mete. I too am pursuing various avenues to obtain copies of said documents but none of them are likely to be quick.
I have to say I am a little disapointed in the UN re how easy it makes obtaining documents by 'normal' people (vs say obtaing UK government documents). To get the UK select committee report I emailed the UK staioners office with the request, they gave me a price and a paypal account that I could pay to and it was mailed to me the day I made the payment. The UN apparently has no similar facility - at least not centraly. It may be that indivdual despoit libraries offer such but this is far from clear. |
|
| Back to top |
|
stavrizatz
Mukhtar/is
Joined: 20 Feb 2006
Posts: 952
Location: Australia / Lefkosia
|
|
I've wrote:
| Quote: |
Why did Turkish Cypriots want to return to their seats?
How many of them?
Were they refused to return? if yes, why?
Were there other attempts to return?
What about the Turkish Cypriots that got into the government today? |
So can someone anwser? |
|
| Back to top |
|
Mete
Warnings : 3
Deputy
Joined: 16 Aug 2005
Posts: 1150
Location: Boston
|
|
| Quote: |
So can someone anwser?
|
These are the answers we're trying to find out using UN documents. I can tell you what I think happened but it'll be pointless. We want unbiased reports like UN reports to tell us what really happened. |
|
| Back to top |
|
stavrizatz
Mukhtar/is
Joined: 20 Feb 2006
Posts: 952
Location: Australia / Lefkosia
|
|
| Ok thanks mete... I glad your doing the research for us cos I am don't have much time at the moment |
|
| Back to top |
|
Mete
Warnings : 3
Deputy
Joined: 16 Aug 2005
Posts: 1150
Location: Boston
|
|
| Well, I wish I could be more help but attempt this weekend was not too successful. |
|
| Back to top |
|
erolz
Site Admin
Joined: 11 Aug 2005
Posts: 4211
Location: Kyrenia / Girne
|
|
I managed to find UN Document S/6426 whihc is currently not available online direct from UN online libraries. It was not sourced by me direct from the UN but via a third party. I believe it to be an accurate copy of the UN document and present it in good faith.
It can be seen here in mulitple parts
http://www.talkcyprus.org/forum/cms_articles.php?cid=6
The 5th part (as I have split the document) is of particular interest re the this thread title. It details from the UN's persepctive the attmempts of the Turkish Cypriot leadership to return to their government positions in the Republic of Cyprus in 65 and the Greek Cypriot leaderships response and non negotiable pre conditions to such a return. It can be viewed here.
http://www.talkcyprus.org/forum/cms_view_article.php?aid=13 |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Register 
Log in 
Album 
Home 
